LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

Class 


NEGROES  AND  THEIR  TREATMENT  IN 
VIRGINIA  FROM  1865  TO  1867 


By 

JOHN  PRESTON  McCONNELL,  M.  A.,  Ph.  D. 

Professor  of  History  and  Political  Science 

in  Emory  and  Henry  College 


Printed  by 

B.  D.  SMITH  &  BROTHERS, 
Pulasfci,  Va. 


COPYBIGHT  1910 

BY  J.  P.  McCONNBLL 


PREFACE. 


FEOM  1865  to  1867  an  unprecedented  revolution  was 
witnessed  in  the  Southern  States.  In  the  following 
pages  an  attempt  is  made  to  note  the  essential  fea 
tures  of  that  upheaval  through  which  the  negroes  passed 
in  two  years  from  chattel  slavery  to  full  citizenship. 

In  these  two  momentous  years  the  white  people  were 
called  upon  to  adjust  themselves  not  only  to  the  full  recog 
nition  of  the  freedom  of  the  negroes  but  to  accept  them  as 
fellow -citizens  with  equal  civil  and  political  rights. 

Many  old  prejudices  had  to  be  reckoned  with  in  this 
adjustment.  This  revolution  was  attended  by  less  demoral 
ization  of  society  in  Virginia  than  in  most  of  the  other 
Southern  States,  nevertheless  the  transition  from  the  old 
order  to  the  new  was  painful  and  confusing. 

It  is  hoped  that  this  discussion  of  that  troubled  period 
will,  in  some  measure,  prove  useful  in  correcting  any 
wrong  impressions  that  may  yet  exist  as  to  what  were  the 
sentiments  of  the  people  in  regard  to  the  changed  condition 
of  the  negroes  and  what  was  the  civil,  political  and  social 
status  of  the  freedmen  during  that  unhappy  period  which 
culminated  in  the  enfranchisement  of  the  blacks  by  con 
gressional  act. 

This  little  book  is  a  part  of  a  proposed  larger  work 
treating  the  history  of  Virginia  since  the  War  between  the 
States.  The  cares  and  responsibilities  incident  to  my  work 
as  a  teacher  have  thus  far  prevented  my  finishing  the  pro 
posed  work. 

In  the  preparation  of  this  work  I  am  indebted  to  Dr. 
E.  H.  Dabney  and  many  other  persons  for  assistance  in 
many  ways.  I  am  especially  indebted  to  my  wife,  who 
contributed  many  helpful  suggestions  and  prepared  the 
manuscript  for  the  printer. 


JOHN  PEESTON  McCONNELL. 


Emory  and  Henry  College, 
December,  1909. 


216623 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  I. 
NUMBER  AND  DISTRIBUTION  OF  NEGROES  IN  VIRGINIA. 

CHAPTER  II. 
PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  VIRGINIA  IN  REGARD  TO  EMANCIPATION. 

CHAPTER  III. 
THE  EFFECT  OF  EMANCIPATION  ON  THE  NEGROES. 

CHAPTER  IV. 
DISTURBING  FORCES. 

CHAPTER  V. 

THE  EVOLUTION  OF  A  SYSTEM  OF  HIRED  LABOR. 

CHAPTER  VI. 
VAGRANCY  AND  VAGRANCY   LAWS. 

CHAPTER  VH. 
CONTRACT  LAWS. 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE  SLAVE  CODE  REPEALED.  * 

CHAPTER  IX. 
OUTRAGES  ON  FREEDMEN  AND  THE    CIVIL  COURTS  FROM  1865    TO    1867. 

CHAPTER  X. 
FRBBDMEN  AND  CIVIL  RIGHTS  IN  1865  AND  1866. 

CHAPTER  XI. 

ENFRANCHISEMENT  OF  THE  FREEDMEN. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

EDUCATION  OP  FREEDMEN. 


CHAPTER 
APPRENTICE  LAWS. 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

NEGRO  MARRIAGES. 

CHAPTER  XV. 
INSURRECTION. 

CHAPTER  XVI. 

SEPARATE  CHURCHES  FOR  NEGROES. 

CHAPTER  XVII. 

EFFECTS  OF  THE  RECONSTRUCTION  ACTS. 

CHAPTER  XVHI. 

SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSION. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Vir 
ginia  from  1865  to  1867. 


CHAPTER  I. 
NUMBER  AND  DISTRIBUTION  OF  NEGROES  IN  VIRGINIA. 

THE  surrender  of  General  Lee  at  Appomattox  virtual 
ly  closed  the  War  between  the  States.  This  contest 
had  freed  the  negroes  throughout  the  seceding  States; 
but  the  future  status  of  the  freedmen  had  not  yet  been 
determined. 

In  the  spring  of  1865  there  were  probably  about  half  a 
million  negroes  in  the  State  of  Virginia — a  number  suffi 
ciently  large  to  prove  a  very  disturbing  factor  amongst  a 
white  population  of  less  than  700,000.  It  added  much  to 
the  gravity  of  the  situation  that  in  a  large  part  of  the  State 
the  negroes  were  a  very  small  part  of  the  population,  while 
in  other  grand  divisions  of  the  State  the  excited  and  idle 
freedmen  were  in  a  decided  majority.  There  are  no  figures 
giving  the  population  of  Virginia  in  the  year  1865,  yet  the 
census  reports  of  1860  or  1870  will  enable  one  to  determine 
with  considerable  accuracy  the  distribution  of  the  white 
and  colored  population  throughout  the  State  at  the  close  of 
the  war. 

The  census  of  1870  shows,  in  the  eighteen  southwest 
counties  of  the  State,  a  white  population  of  152,297  and  a 
colored  population  of  only  21,595.  In  the  twelve  Valley 
counties  having  a  white  population  of  117,321  there  were 
only  25,681  negroes.  In  these  two  great  divisions  of  the 
State,  embracing  thirty  counties  with  a  white  population  of 


2  Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6? 

269,618,   there  were  only  47,276  negroes  who  constituted 
less  than  fifteen  per  cent,  of  the  entire  population.1 

In  these  two  sections  the  greater  part  of  the  labor  had 
always  been  performed  by  white  men  as  free  laborers  work 
ing  either  for  themselves  or  for  other  white  men  for  wages. 
Slave  labor  had  never  been  such  an  important  factor  in  the 
industry  of  these  communities  as  it  had  been  in  the  counties 
east  of  the  Blue  Bidge;  for  this  reason,  there  was  less  dis 
turbance  of  the  industrial  system  of  these  sections,  the 
whites  more  readily  adapted  themselves  to  a  system  of  free 
labor,  and  the  supply  of  labor  was  much  less  demoralized 
than  in  the  parts  of  the  State  where  society  and  industry 
were,  in  a  larger  degree,  based  on  slave  labor.2  Probably 
the  negroes  did  not  desert  the  farms  and  their  accustomed 
trades  to  such  an  extent  in  these  sections  as  they  did  in  the 
eastern  and  southeastern  parts  of  the  State.  If  as  large  a 
percentage  of  them  did  leave  their  old  homes  and  trades 
they  were  very  readily  absorbed  as  barbers,  porters,  livery 
men  and  in  other  menial  services  about  the  towns. 

In  the  section  of  the  State  east  of  the  Blue  Eidge  there 
were,  according  to  the  census  of  1870,  442,471  whites  and 
465,565  blacks,  giving  the  negroes  a  majority  over  the 
whites  of  23,044.8  In  1860  the  Southside,  the  counties 
south  of  the  James  Eiver,  had  a  negro  population  of  207,- 
668.  This  population  had  increased  considerably  by  1865.4 
It  is  safe  to  say  that  these  counties  contained  at  least  215,- 
000  negroes  in  the  spring  of  1865.  Here  a  large  part  of  the 
labor  had  always  been  performed  by  negro  slaves.  In  the 
counties  of  Amelia,  Brunswick,  Charlotte,  Cumberland, 

!For  distribution  of  negroes  throughout  the  State,  see  pp.  5,  69-70, 
Vol.  of  Statistics  and  Population,  Census  Report  1870. 

2For  demoralized  state  of  labor  and  industry  in  the  eastern  part  of 
the  State,  see  the  Virginia  newspapers  of  that  period. 

3Pp.  69-70,  Vol.  of  Statistics  and  Population,  Census  Report  1870. 

*This  section  was  comparatively  little  disturbed  by  army  operations 
until  near  the  close  of  the  war. 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Vir^ma,  1865-6?  3 

Nottoway,  Powhatan,  Prince  Edward,  Prince  George,  Sur- 
ry  and  Sussex,  the  negroes  constituted  about  two- thirds  of 
the  inhabitants.  In  Buckingham,  Luuenburg,  Southamp 
ton,  Dinwiddie  and  Halifax,  the  negroes  were  in  majorities 
ranging  from  2, 000  to  7,000  in  each  county.  In  Campbell 
and  Pittsylvania  they  had  a  majority  in  a  combined  popu 
lation.5  In  many  other  counties  in  eastern  and  southeast 
ern  Virginia  the  negroes  were  in  the  majority  and  were 
more  ignorant  than  in  the  sections  of  the  State  where  they 
were  less  numerous.  As  might  be  expected  it  was  in  these 
sections  that  the  emancipation  of  the  slaves  brought  most 
hardships  and  disorder. 

In  addition  to  these  agglomerations  of  negroes  in  cer 
tain  sections  of  the  State,  thousands  of  them  had  thronged 
to  the  cities  and  towns  and  there  taken  up  their  abode. 
The  census  of  1870  shows  that  the  thirty -five  cities  and 
towns  of  the  State,  for  which  the  population  was  given  in 
1860  and  1870,  had  an  increase  of  only  705  white  inhabi 
tants,  while  the  increase  of  the  colored  inhabitants  in  the 
same  towns  was  25, 834.  This  increase  of  colored  popula 
tion  took  place  almost  entirely  in  the  section  of  the  State 
where  the  negroes  were  most  numerous.  In  many  of  the 
towns  of  the  Valley  and  the  Southwest  there  was  an  actual 
decrease  in  the  number  of  negroes.  In  the  decade  from 
1860  to  1870  the  white  population  of  these  thirty-five  towns 
grew  from  88,381  to  89,086.  The  colored  population  in 
the  same  cities  leaped  from  41,675  to  67,509.  The  number 
of  negroes  in  the  District  of  Columbia  had  grown  from 
14,316  in  1860  to  43,404  in  1870,  of  whom  16,785  had  been 
born  in  Virginia.  Alexandria's  colored  population  had  in 
the  meantime  grown  from  2,801  to  5,301;  Hampton's 
from  855  to  1,841;  Eichmond's  from  14,275  to  23,110;  Nor 
folk's  from  4,330  to  8,766;  Portsmouth's  from  1,477  to 


5For  number  and  character  of  negroes  in  the  Southside,  see  passim 
Bruce,  Plantation  Negro  as  a  Freeman. 


4  Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-67 

3,617.  There  had  been  very  little  increase  in  the  white 
population  in  any  of  these  cities,  and  in  Alexandria, 
Lynchburg,  Manchester,  Petersburg,  Williamsburg,  Ports 
mouth,  Fredericksburg  and  Winchester  there  had  been  an 
actual  loss  in  the  number  of  the  whites  for  this  same 
decade.6  The  number  of  negroes  in  the  towns  and  cities  of 
Virginia  in  1865  was  irom  twenty-five  to  fifty7  per  cent, 
greater  than  it  was  in  1870,  before  which  time  many  of 
them  had  returned  to  the  farms. 

The  census  of  1870  shows  that  more  than  50,000 
of  the  negroes  in  Maryland,  Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  Dis 
trict  of  Columbia,  Massachusetts  and  New  York  had 
been  born  in  Virginia.8  Many  of  them  had  gone 
to  these  states  before  the  war,  but  it  is  not  possible  to  de 
termine  at  present  how  many.  It  is  a  significant  fact  that 
the  colored  population  of  Virginia  and  West  Virginia  was 
18,086  less  in  1870  than  in  I8609.  A  constant  stream  of 
negroes  poured  across  the  Potomac  and  Ohio  rivers  from 
1862  to  1867.  Kentucky  and  Missouri  had  also  lost  about 
the  same  percentage  of  their  blacks.  The  number  of 
negroes  in  each  of  the  seceding  States,  except  Virginia,  was 
larger  in  1870  than  in  1860.  In  some  of  the  states,  in 
which  the  military  operations  had  not  been  so  constant,  the 

6Pp.  278-283,  Vol.  of  Statistics  and  Population,  Census  Report  1870. 

7This  statement  is  based  on  estimates  made  by  conservative  citizens 
who  were  living  at  that  time.  The  press  and  army  officers  spoke  repeat 
edly  of  the  influx  of  negroes  to  the  cities.  There  are  no  figures  giving  the 
number  of  negroes  in  the  towns  in  1865.  Gen.  Halleck  reported,  June  25, 
1865,  that  there  were  from  30,000  to  40,000  free  negroes  in  Richmond  at 
that  time.  Serial  97,  Official  Records  of  War  of  Rebellion. 

For  account  of  the  desertion  of  their  homes  by  negroes  see  Richmond 
Daily  Enquirer,  May  22,  1866 ;  The  Richmond  Republic,  May  16,  1865,  and 
Aug.  10,  1865.  Women,  with  their  children,  walked  three  or  four  days  to 
get  away  from  their  old  homes  to  the  towns. 

,  Vol.  Statistics  and  Population,  Census  Report  1870. 

,  Ibid.     See  this  table  also  for  gain  or  loss  in  negro  population 
in  other  states. 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-67  5 

increase  of  the  negro  population  had  been  very  marked, 
being  79,000  in  Georgia  and  more  than  30,000  in  several 
other  states.  The  remoteness  of  most  of  the  slave  states 
from  the  free  states  rendered  "refugeeing'  >  very  difficult 
for  all  negroes  and  impossible  for  most  of  them.  The  pres 
ence  of  the  Federal  armies  and  the  proximity  of  free  terri 
tory  rendered  it  comparatively  easy  for  many  negroes  in 
Virginia  to  find  their  way  across  the  Ohio  or  the  Potomac 
to  the  free  states. 

It  is,  therefore,  easy  to  see,  that  in  the  spring  of  1865 
the  whole  slave  system  was  utterly  destroyed  in  Virginia; 
the  former  slave  population  was  agitated  and  unsettled; 
the  old  forms  of  industry  and  social  life  based  on  slavery 
were  irrevocably  gone. 


CHAPTER  II. 

PUBLIC  OPINION  IN  VIRGINIA  IN  REGARD 
TO  EMANCIPATION. 

Although  Congress,  in  the  Crittenden  Resolution  of 
July,  1861,  had  declared  that  the  war  was  not  waged  to 
interfere  with  any  of  the  domestic  institutions  of  the  states, 
but  solely  for  the  preservation  of  the  union  of  the  states, 
and  that  the  war  should  cease  when  that  union  was  assured, 
it  was  felt  everywhere  that  the  fate  of  slavery  was  an  issue. 
The  South  had  entered  into  the  contest  feeling  that  failure 
would  involve  the  downfall  of  slavery.  Before  the  war  was 
finished  it  became  quite  as  much  the  aim  of  a  large  part  of 
the  people  of  the  Northern  States  utterly  to  extirpate 
slavery  as  to  preserve  the  union.  It  was  felt  that  it  was 


6  Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6? 

necessary   to   destroy  slavery  to   save  the  union.     With 
these  clearly  defined  issues  the  war  was  fought  out. 

At  the  close  of  this  four  years'  contest,  in  which  the 
people  of  the  South  with  an  unanimity  unparalleled  resisted 
the  invading  armies  as  long  as  honor  demanded  or  human 
ity  permitted,  it  was  naturally  asked  by  the  world:  "Do 
the  people  of  Virginia  accept  the  abolition  of  slavery  in 
good  faith,  or  is  their  acquiescence  in  its  destruction  only 
a  ruse  of  exhausted  disloyalty,  by  which  they  hope  to  gain 
strength  and  opportunity  to  renew  the  contest  to  restore 
slavery,  or  to  accomplish  by  cunningly  devised  legislation 
the  re-enslavement  of  the  negroes?  Has  the  war  merely 
destroyed  the  name  of  slavery  without  destroying  its 
reality!"0 

To  appreciate  just  how  the  people  of  Virginia  regard 
ed  the  abolition  of  slavery  it  is  necessary  to  understand 
what  they  thought  of  this  institution  prior  to  the  war. 
Many  slaveholders  in  Virginia  had  long  considered  slavery 
a  burden  on  the  masters  and  a  detriment  to  the  best  inter 
ests  of  the  community.1  It  had  long  been  a  question  with 
many  of  the  most  thoughtful  whether  slavery  in  Virginia 
was  profitable  in  the  mere  production  of  wealth.  Through 
out  the  South  slave  labor  was  being  driven  to  a  few  regions 
devoted  to  the  cultivation  of  tobacco,  cotton  and  sugar 
cane.  Slaves  were  not  as  valuable  in  Virginia  as  in  the 
undeveloped  states  of  the  Southwest.  The  average  hire  of 
an  able-bodied  man  slave  for  the  four  states,  Arkansas, 
Texas,  Mississippi  and  Louisiana  was  in  1860  a  little  more 
than  60  per  cent  higher  than  in  Virginia.2  As  a  natural 

°Congressional  Globe  1865-1867 (passim), debates  on Freedmen's Bureau 
Bill,  Civil  Rights  Bill,  Constitutional  amendments  and  Reconstruction 
acts.  See  also  Summer's  speech,  Congressional  Globe  1864-1865,  p.  989. 
See  Carl  Schurz's  report,  Congressional  Globe  1865-1866,  p.  1305. 

iMinor's  Institutes,  Vol.  I,  p.  168.  Ballagh,  A  History  of  Slavery  in 
Virginia. 

2  Annual  Report  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture  1867,  p.  416.  Vir 
ginia  never  engaged  in  breeding  and  raising  negroes  for  the  slave  market. 
For  conclusive  evidence  of  this,  see  The  Domestic  Slave  Trade,  by  W.  H. 
Collins. 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865*6?  7 

consequence  slavery  had  lost  much  of  its  popular  support 
in  Virginia  as  compared  with  the  "Cotton  States;"  for  any 
community  is  apt  to  see  the  weakness  of  slavery  when  it 
has  once  ceased  to  be  profitable,  even  if  it  cannot  see  the 
means  of  abolishing  it. 

The  same  spirit  that  had  caused  Jefferson  and  Henry 
to  deplore  the  evils  of  slavery  persisted  in  Virginia.  Like 
Jefferson,  Henry  and  Tucker  at  the  beginning  of  the  cen 
tury,  many  owners  of  negroes  in  the  middle  of  the  century 
would  gladly  have  been  free  from  their  slaves;  but, 
embarrassed  by  the  difficulties  and  dangers  of  emancipa 
tion  and  restrained  by  the  meshes  of  this  all-permeating 
institution,  they  did  not  feel  justified  in  taking  the  initiative 
in  this  general  manumission.  The  atrocities  of  the  lately 
emancipated  West  India  negroes  deterred  many  from  fol 
lowing  their  desire  to  liberate  their  own  servants.  In  addi 
tion  to  all  these  difficulties  every  plantation  was  a  little 
community  in  which  there  were  many  helpless  old  negroes, 
cripples,  and  children  who  were  unable  to  provide  for 
themselves.  To  liberate  these  and  turn  them  adrift  would, 
under  the  mantle  of  philanthropy,  have  been  extreme 
heartlessness  and  cruelty.  The  white  master  could  not  feel 
that  it  was  his  duty  to  continue  to  care  for  the  dependents 
and  at  the  same  time  emancipate  the  able-bodied  sons  or 
fathers  to  lead  idle  and  vagrant  lives.  The  master,  there 
fore,  however  humane  or  philanthropic  he  might  be,  was 
under  the  moral  obligation  to  hold  these  plantation  groups 
together.3 

A  plan  of  gradual  emancipation  was  seriously  discussed 
in  the  General  Assembly  of  Virginia  in  1831 -32.4  Public 
sentiment  was  rapidly  moving  toward  a  general  emancipa 
tion  about  the  time  the  anti-slavery  crusade  began  in  the 

8Bruce's  Plantation  Negro  as  a  Freeman  discusses,  in  an  admirable 
manner,  the  economy  of  a  Virginia  slave  plantation  and  the  difficulty  of 
breaking  it  up. 

^Minor's  Institutes,  Vol.  I,  p.  168, 


8  Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-67 

North.  The  abolitionists  became  quite  offensive  in  their 
criticism  of  slavery  in  the  South.  The  Virginians,  always 
jealous  of  outside  intermeddling  with  their  affairs,  resented 
the  efforts  of  Northern  agitators.  Naturally  the  movement 
was  thus  checked  in  the  State.  Nevertheless  the  Legisla 
ture  continued  to  provide  for  emancipation  and  granted  an 
annual  appropriation  of  $30,000  and  a  poll  tax  of  one 
dollar  per  head  on  every  male  free  negro  of  the  age  of 
twenty- one  years  and  under  fifty-five  to  be  used  in  coloniz 
ing  free  negroes  in  Liberia.5  This  appropriation,  continued 
until  1860,  is  a  proof  of  the  sincerity  of  the  Virginians  in 
their  professions  of  interest  in  the  gradual  abolition  of 
slavery,  and  shows  how  keenly  they  realized  the  difficulties 
of  emancipating  the  negroes  and  allowing  them  to  remain 
in  the  State,  and  further  explains  why  so  many  men,  who 
detested  the  whole  system,  hesitated  to  free  their  slaves. 
There  were  statutes  against  the  immigration  of  free  negroes 
into  the  State.6  The  presence  of  negroes  in  any  capacity 
was  felt  to  be  a  perplexing  problem  of  which  the  most 
practical  solution  was  either  gradual  emancipation  and 
colonization  or,  if  this  was  impracticable,  the  continued 
servitude  of  the  negroes.  There  had  been  a  great  amelior 
ation  in  the  treatment  of  slaves  in  the  twenty-five  years 
preceding  the  war.  Many  benevolent  individuals  exerted 
themselves  to  bring  about  this  state  of  things  by  creating  in 
the  public  mind  a  spirit  of  reprobation  of  cruelty  to  slaves. 7 
Gov.  F.  H.  Pierpont,  of  Virginia,  in  his  message  to 
the  Legislature  in  1865,  speaking  of  the  negroes,  said  that 
their  condition  was  a  hard  one  as  they  had  the  i  'theory  of 
the  politicians  and  the  dogma  of  the  divines  against  them.8'7 
His  statment  is  true  if  he  meant  that  the  politicians  of  the 
State  considered  the  negro  a  race  so  radically  different  from 

5Code  of  1860,  p.  520. 

6Code  of  1860,  p.  810. 

^Hildreth,  Despotism  in  America  (passim). 

^American  Annual  Cyclopaedia  1866,  p.  763. 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6?  9 

the  whites  that  it  was  impossible  for  them  to  be  assimilated 
by  the  whites;  that  they  were  a  race  incapable  of  sharing 
in  the  government  of  the  State;  and  that  the  wisest  solution 
of  this  question  for  both  races  at  that  time,  at  least,  was  the 
political  and  social  subordination  of  the  weaker  race  to  the 
stronger.  The  statement  is  not  true  if  he  means  that  the 
great  mass  of  the  people  either  in  1860  or  in  1865  bore  any 
malice  or  hatred  to  the  negroes,  or  that  they  wished  to 
make  hard  the  condition  of  their  lives.9  In  regard  to  the 
statement  that  the  dogmas  of  the  divines  were  against  the 
negroes,  the  great  body  of  the  ecclesiastical  leaders  of  the 
State  were  not  in  love  with  the  institution  of  slavery. 
They  did  not  wish  its  presence  but  simply  accepted  it  as 
the  wisest  and  most  humane  solution  of  the  presence  of  the 
negroes  amongst  the  whites.  They  felt  that  the  mere  hold 
ing  of  a  negro  as  a  servant  was  not  obviously  opposed  to 
the  spirit  and  doctrine  of  the  Christian  religion.  They 
were  deeply  interested  in  their  spiritual  welfare  and  car 
ried  on  a  successful  propaganda  among  them  with  the  re 
sult  that  a  very  large  percentage  of  them  were  severely 
orthodox  Christians  when  they  became  freemen  in  1865.° 

9See  State  newspapers  of  that  period  in  regard  to  the  feeling  toward 
negroes. 

A  letter  from  B.  Johnson  Barbour,  Esq.,  published  in  The  Republic, 
Richmond,  Va.,  Aug.  12,  1865.  *  *  *  *  "In  their  general  conduct 
they  (the  whites)  should  recognize  the  two  great  facts  which  the  war  has 
established— Life  to  the  Nation  and  Death  to  Slavery.  It  is  our  duty  to 
deal  kindly  and  gently  with  a  race  suddenly  emancipated,  even  though 
in  the  first  flush  of  freedom  they  should  violate  our  traditional  ideas  of 
subordination  and  discipline.  By  calmness  and  patience  we  shall  do 
much  toward  repressing  that  spirit  of  agitation  which,  through  folly  or 
crime,  would  make  freedom  a  curse  instead  of  a  blessing  to  the  negro. 
His  future  condition  is  the  only  difficult  problem  left  unsettled  by  the 
war." 

°This  is  the  universal  testimony.  These  facts  are  forcefully  brought 
out  in  a  personal  letter  from  Rev.  J.  vViiliam  Jones  to  the  writer. 

The  following  preamble  and  resolution  adopted  by  the  East  Hanover 
Presbytery  is  representative  of  the  spirit  of  the  other  denominations : 

"In  consideration  of  the  fact  that  the  largest  proportion  of  the  colored 
population  are  within  the  bounds  of  East  Hanover,  this  Presbytery  would 


10  Negroes  and  Iheir  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6? 

There  were  slaveholders  who,  in  their  heartlessness  and 
greed  for  gain,  made  the  life  of  the  slave  a  burden  and  thus 
made  slavery  odious  in  the  eyes  of  the  world.  It  is  doubt 
less  true  that  some  ministers  were  over  anxious  to  palliate 
the  evils  and  to  magnify  the  necessity  and  the  Christianity 
of  slavery.  Still  it  is  true  that  the  great  body  of  the  most 
thoughtful  men  of  all  classes  regarded  human  slavery  as  an 
unfortunate  inheritance,  a  burden  from  which  they  wished 
to  be  relieved  by  some  safe  and  practicable  means. 

Entertaining  these  opinions  the  people  of  Virginia  did 
not  hesitate  to  accept  the  abolition  of  slavery  as  one  of  the 
most  patent  results  of  the  contest  out  of  which  they  emerged 
in  1865.  The  events  and  agitation  of  the  four  years7  war 
had  so  shattered  and  demoralized  slavery  that  all  sensible 
men  felt  that  its  fate  was  sealed  in  Virginia,  whatever 
might  be  the  wishes  of  the  whites.  Large  numbers  of  the 
slaves  had  enjoyed  a  taste  of  personal  liberty  within  the 
Union  lines.  It  was  not  to  be  expected  that  they,  having 
once  felt  that  they  were  free,  would  readily  take  again 
their  former  places  as  slaves.  In  the  Valley,  in  the  North 
ern,  North  Central  and  Tidewater  counties  of  the  State  the 
old  plantation  life  was  broken  up.  It  was  estimated  in  the 
spring  of  1865  that  50, 000  negroes  in  Virginia  had  deserted 


express  its  undiminished  interest  in  the  spiritual  welfare  of  this  class  of 
our  people  and  its  solemn  conviction  of  the  peculiar  responsibilities  now 
resting  upon  us  in  consequence  of  the  new  relations  they  now  sustain 
to  us. 

"Remembering  that  our  colored  friends  have  an  equal  interest  with 
us  in  the  redemption  provided  by  Christ  Jesus,  and  mindful  of  the  claims 
of  those  who  were  born  and  reared  among  us,  and  many  of  whom  are 
still  members  of  our  families  and  in  our  employment,  and  regarding  it 
both  as  our  duty  and  privilege  to  do  all  in  our  power  to  promote  their 
spiritual  well-being,  Resolved,  That  by  means  of  family  and  Sabbath 
school  and  catechetical  instruction,  by  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  for 
their  special  benefit,  we  will  endeavor,  with  unabated  zeal,  to  advance 
their  religious  culture,  with  the  hope  and  prayer  that  we  may  be  made 
equally  instrumental  with  other  denominations— our  co-laborers  with  us 
—in  the  great  work  of  bringing  them  into  the  fold  of  Christ.  "—Richmond 
Republic,  Sept.  21,  1865. 


Negroes  and  I  heir  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-67  11 

their  homes  and  masters.1  These  were  generally  the  most 
intelligent  and  aspiring  of  their  race— many  of  them  being 
soldiers  in  the  Federal  army. 

The  Virginians,  seeing  that  slavery  was  already  "worn 
out  by  the  friction  of  the  war,'7  had  laid  down  their  arms 
in  1865,  understanding  full  well  that  they  had  seen  the  last 
of  slavery;  and,  in  their  hearts,  many  were  thankful  that 
they  were  rid  of  it.2  While  few  recognized  that  it  had  been 
constitutionally  abolished,  most  were  glad  to  accept  it  as  an 
accomplished  fact  and  felt  that  the  dire  consequences  that 
seemed  about  to  follow  the  wholesale  and  immediate  eman 
cipation  were  not  chargeable  to  them.  After  the  close  of 
hostilities  and  the  return  of  the  soldiers  to  their  homes, 

iRichmond  Times,  July  14,  1865. 

2May  17,  1865,  Richmond  Times  said :  "The  fate  of  slavery  in  Virginia 
was,  by  the  natural  effects,  *  *  settled  in  Virginia  before  the  Confed 
eracy  collapsed.  *  *  Under  such  circumstances,  if  the  continuance  of 
slavery  was  decreed  tomorrow,  the  shattered  wreck  of  the  dilapidated 
carcass  of  the  institution  would  prove,  we  fear,  little  better  than  an  eye 
sore  and  a  stumbling  block  in  our  path,  a  mildew  upon  our  prosperity." 

Richmond  Enquirer,  Nov.  23, 1865,  says :  "The  abrogation  of  property 
in  slaves"  is  one  of  the  indisputable  results  of  the  war.  The  Richmond 
Republic,  May  19,  1865,  says:  "The  war  has  administered  a  death  blow 
to  slavery.  Nothing,  therefore,  is  more  idle  or  vain  than  the  hope  or  ex 
pectation  of  prolonging  the  existence  of  the  institution  (of  slavery)  by 
expedients  which  should  aim  to  preserve  the  reality  while  relinquishing 
the  name."  However,  the  Daily  Dispatch,  Jan.  4,  1865,  claims  that  the 
condition  of  the  negro,  if  freed  by  the  Federal  Government,  would  be 
more  pitiable  than  that  of  the  slave  and  that  a  new  slavery  would  arise. 
Robert  Ridgeway,  in  The  Whig,  Aug.  11,  1865,  says:  "The  abolition  of 
slavery  is  one  of  the  accomplished  results  of  the  war  and  it  becomes  the 
duty  of  the  people  of  Virginia  to  accept  that  result  in  entire  good  faith, 
dismissing  from  their  minds  the  chimerical  idea,  if  any  such  idea  is  en 
tertained  by  them,  that  it  can,  in  any  event,  ever  be  re-established."  The 
Richmond  papers  from  April,  1865,  to  the  close  of  the  year,  give  accounts 
of  county  mass-meetings  in  various  parts  of  the  State,  accepting  unre 
servedly  the  abolition  of  slavery  as  an  accomplished  and  irrevocable  fact. 
The  General  Assembly,  in  its  Joint  Resolution  of  Feb.  6, 1866,  uncondition 
ally  accepted  emancipation.  Acts  1865-6,  p.  449.  Hon.  A.  H.  H.  Stuart's 
"Narrative  of  the  Popular  Movement  in  Virginia  in  1865,  and  the  Com 
mittee  of  Nine,"  discusses  very  fully  the  feeling  in  regard  to  the  uncondi 
tional  emancipation  of  the  slaves. 


12  Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-67 

large  and  representative  meetings  of  the  white  citizens 
were  held  throughout  the  State,  in  which  resolutions  were 
adopted  declaring  that  the  people  accepted  in  good  faith 
and  without  mental  reservation  the  results  of  the  war, 
amongst  which  they  regarded  the  abolition  of  slavery  the 
chief.  Many  of  the  most  prominent  men  in  the  State,  by 
speeches  and  open  letters  in  the  newspapers,  expressed  their 
acquiescence  in  emancipation  and  urged  all  the  people 
everywhere  to  accommodate  themselves  to  the  changed 
relations  they  bore  to  their  former  slaves,  to  deal  fairly 
with  them,  to  employ  them  for  wages,  or  to  share  with 
them  the  crops. 

The  negroes  were  at  once  recognized  as  free.  Their 
right  to  assert  their  freedom  was  not  questioned.  Col.  O. 
Brown,  the  assistant  Commissioner  of  the  Freed- 
men's  Bureau  for  the  State  of  Virginia,  in  his  report 
to  Gen.  O.  O.  Howard,  at  the  close  of  the  year  1865, 
says:  "It  is  believed  that  there  is  not  within  the  State  a 
person  who  does  not  understand  and  successfully  assert  his 
right  to  freedom.3"  If  there  had  been  any  denial  of  free 
dom  to  any  freedman  in  the  State  it  is  not  probable  that  it 
would  have  escaped  the  attention  of  Col.  Brown,  as  the 
agents  of  the  Bureau  were  scattered  over  the  State  and 
were  generally  careful  to  investigate  any  real  or  imagined 
wrong  done  a  negro,  and  the  negroes  were  not  negligent  in 
reporting  their  troubles  to  the  Freedmen's  Bureau. 

In  addition  to  the  evidence  furnished  by  the  numerous 
county  meetings,  in  regard  to  the  full  and  frank  acceptance 
of  the  freedom  of  the  negro,  the  editorials  and  the  corre 
spondence  of  the  representative  newspapers  of  the  State  re 
peatedly  expressed  full  recognition  of  the  unconditional  de 
struction  of  slavery.4  In  the  summer  of  1865  it  was  reported 

3Col.  O.  Brown's  report  of  the  operation  of  the  Feedmen's  Bureau  in 
Virginia  1865,  published  in  Lynchburg  Virginian,  Jan.  2,  1866. 

4See  newspapers  of  that  period.   April  25,  1865,  Gen.  Halleck,  in  letter 
to  Secretary  Stanton,  quotes  Alexander  Rives  as  saying  that  nearly  all 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-67  13 

that  a  man  in  Petersburg  was  paying  $10.00  per  capita  for 
the  claim  of  ownership  of  able-bodied  negroes,  in  the  belief 
that  they  would  be  remanded  to  their  old  condition.  So 
absurd  did  his  course  seem  that  he  was  made  a  subject  of 
ridicule  and  held  up  by  the  press  as  a  sort  of  harmless  and 
good-natured  lunatic.  It  was  declared  by  the  press  that 
the  restoration  of  slavery  was  not  desired,  even  if  the  courts 
should  hold  the  various  proclamations  and  acts  emancipat 
ing  the  slaves  unconstitutional.5  The  following  quotation 
from  Ex-Gov.  Henry  A.  Wise  expresses  about  what  many 
representative  Virginians  thought  in  the  summer  of  1865: 
"So  far  from  my  being  opposed  to  the  name  'freedom'  as 
indicating  the  condition  of  slaves  freed  by  the  war,  the 
chief  consolation  I  have  in  the  result  of  the  war  is  that 
slavery  is  forever  abolished;  that  not  only  slaves  are,  in 
fact,  at  last  freed  from  bondage  but  that  I  am  freed  from 
them.  Long  before  the  war  ended,  I  had  definitely  made 
up  my  mind  actively  to  advocate  emancipation  throughout 
the  South.  I  had  determined,  if  I  could  help  it,  my 
decendants  should  never  be  subject  to  the  humiliation  I 
have  been  subject  to  by  the  weakness,  if  not  the  wicked 
ness,  of  slavery;  and  while  I  cannot  recognize  as  lawful  and 
humane  the  violent  and  shocking  mode  in  which  it  has 
been  abolished,  yet  I  accept  the  fact  most  heartily  as  an 
accomplished  one,  and  am  determined  not  only  to  abide  by 
it  and  acquiesce  in  it,  but  to  strive  by  all  means  in  my 
power  to  make  it  beneficent  to  both  races  and  a  blessing 
especially  to  our  country.  I  unfeignedly  rejoice  at  the  fact, 
and  am  reconciled  to  many  of  the  worse  calamities  of  the 
war  because  I  am  now  convinced  that  the  war  was  a  special 
providence  of  God,  unavoidable  by  the  nations  at  their  ex- 
parties  were  ready  to  abandon  slavery  and  that  a'popular  vote  would  be 
strongly  against  it.  P.  939,  serial  97,  Official  Records  of  War  of  Rebellion. 
For  account  of  delegation  sent  from  the  Legislature  of  Virginia  to  Presi 
dent  Johnson,  see  p.  Ill,  App.  Congressional  Globe  1865-1866.' 

5Lynchburg  Virginian,  June  12,  1865,  and  for  several  days  following. 


14  Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6? 

treme,  to  tear  loose  from  us  a  black  idol  from  which  we 
could  never  have  been  separated  by  any  other  means  than 
those  of  fire  and  blood,  sword  and  sacrifice."6 

Col.  O.  Brown,  the  agent  of  the  Freedmen's  Bureau  in 
Virginia,  divided  the  people  of  Virginia  into  three  classes 
according  to  their  views  of  the  negro  and  the  Freedmen's 
Bureau.  Of  the  first  class  he  said:  "Many  of  the  citizens, 
under  the  control  of  tradition,  habit  and  education,  only 
sullenly  acquiesced  in  the  freedom  of  their  former  slaves."7 
He  further  complained  that  this  class  regarded  the  colored 
population  as  necessarily  and  appropriately  servile  and 
unfit  for  freedom ;  that  they  felt  that  negroes  were  in  some 
way  responsible  for  the  failure  of  the  Confederacy.  For 
this  reason  he  thought  this  first  class  "wholly  unqualified" 
for  co-operation  in  the  work  of  the  Bureau. 

It  is  true  that  many  people  accepted  the  abolition  of 
slavery  as  an  accomplished  fact  without  recognizing  the 
legality  or  justice  of  the  manner  in  which  it  was  accom 
plished,  but  even  this  class  entertained  no  hope,  and  but 
little  desire,  of  seeing  its  restoration  attempted. 

It  is  also  true  that  most  people  in  Virginia  did  then 
regard  and  always  have  regarded  the  negro  as  an  inferior 
race  and  unqualified  to  take  a  leading  part  in  the  govern 
ment  of  the  State;  bat  this  opinion  of  his  place  in  society 
did  not  indispose  the  whites  to  deal  justly  with  him  and  to 
grant  him  all  civil  rights  and  several  political  rights  as 
will  be  shown  later. 

The  feeling  that  a  race  or  an  individual  is  an 
inferior  in  point  of  ability  and  power  begets  a  sense 
of  kindly  interest  and  sympathy  for  the  weaker  party 
by  the  stronger  rather  than  a  desire  to  do  wrong  or 


SThis  letter  is  quoted  exactly  as  published  in  the  Lynchburg  Virgin 
ian,  Sept.  9,  1865. 

7Lynchburg  Virginian,  Jan.  2,  1866. 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6?  15 

violence  to  the  weakling.8  Such  was  the  case  in 
1865  in  Virginia  in  regard  to  the  negroes,  from  whom  so 
ciety  hoped  to  receive  less  and  to  whom  it  felt  inclined  to 
give  more  than  it  was  prepared  to  receive  from  and  give  to 
the  whites.  The  enfranchisement  of  the  negroes  in  1867, 
and  the  efforts  to  place  the  whites  under  the  domination  of 
the  blacks,  did  much  to  destroy  the  interest  and  sympathy 
which  the  whites  had  always  felt  for  them. 

Of  the  second  class  into  which  he  divided  the  people, 
Col.  Brown  said:  "Another  class,  numerically  small  but 
of  the  best  talent,  culture  and  influence,  not  only  accepted 
the  situation, but  with  a  wise  foresight  and  noble  patriotism 
were  ready  to  co-operate  with  the  (U.  S. )  Government  for 
the  speediest  restoration  of  tranquility  and  law,  and  to 
assist  the  Bureau  in  its  endeavor  to  bring  the  highest  good 
to  all  classes  out  of  the  present  evils."9 

From  these  quotations  it  is  seen  that  co-operation 
or  failure  to  co-operate  with  the  Freedmen's  Bureau 
in  1865  is  one  of  the  chief  marks  by  which  Col. 
Brown  distinguishes  and  classifies  the  people.  Per 
haps  it  was  impossible  for  the  agents  of  the  Freedmen's 
Bureau  at  that  time  to  understand  how  any  white  man  could 
sincerely  accept  the  abolition  of  slavery  and  at  the  same 
time  stand  aloof  from  the  Bureau.  Still,  many  who  unre 
servedly  recognized  and  accepted  the  complete  destruction 
of  slavery  were  firmly  convinced  that  the  Bureau's  purpose 
and  method,  with  the  possible  exception  of  its  educational 
work  and  the  support  of  the  absolutely  helpless  negroes, 
were  unwise  and  tended  to  widen  the  chasm  between  the 
whites  and  the  blacks. 

8 July  7,  1865,  Richmond  Times  says:  "The  collapse  of  the  Confed 
eracy  having,  as  we  anticipated,  resulted  in  the  overthrow  of  slavery,  we 
have  no  wrongs  to  avenge  at  the  expense  of  the  negro.  It  is  to  our  inter 
est  to  make  him  a  useful  laborer,  and  cruelty  to  the  emancipated  slave 
would  be  just  as  absurd  a  piece  of  inhumanity  as  cruelty  to  a  horse  or  an 
ox." 

9Lynchburg  Virginian,  Jan.  2,  1866. 


16  Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6? 

In  addition  to  the  two  classes  just  mentioned  Col. 
Brown  declared  that  ua  third  and  more  numerous  class, 
because  forced  to  acknowledge  the  freedom  of  their  for 
mer  slaves,  wished  either  to  effect  their  entire  removal 
from  the  State  or  bind  them  by  such  contracts  as  would 
allow  them  but  little  more  freedom  than  they  formerly 
possessed.97' 

The  perplexed  and  unsettled  state  of  the  public 
mind  is  indicated  very  clearly  in  this  quotation. 
By  some  people  it  was  felt  that  the  whites  and  blacks  could 
not  live  together  on  terms  of  equality.  To  some  the  only 
solution  of  this  problem  seemed  to  be  a  general  emigration 
of  one  of  the  races.  There  was  much  talk  of  such  a  move 
ment  of  the  negroes  either  to  some  territory  of  the  United 
States  or  to  Africa.  Numbers  of  the  most  intelligent  col 
ored  people  in  the  State  were  setting  out  for  Liberia;  others 
were  preparing  to  follow.0  On  the  other  hand  many  whites, 
despairing  of  peace  and  prosperity  of  the  community,  at 
tempting  to  ignore  racial  differences  and  antipathies,  were 
planning  to  find  for  themselves  new  homes  in  Mexico  or  in 
some  of  the  South  American  States.  Wiser  heads,  under 
standing  the  improbability,  if  not  the  impossibility  of  a 
general  emigration  either  of  the  whites  or  blacks,  were  try 
ing  to  devise  some  plan  to  reorganize  the  social  and  indus 
trial  framework  so  suddenly  revolutionized  by  the  immedi 
ate  manumission  of  the  colored  race.  The  press  almost 
universally  discouraged  emigration  schemes  and  urged  the 
people  to  adjust  themselves  to  the  new  conditions.1 

9Lynchburg  Virginian,  Jan.  2,  1866. 

°A  considerable  number  of  negroes  left  Lynchburg  in  October,  1865, 
for  Liberia.  Others  were  to  follow.  The  emigrants  were  very  unfortun 
ate  in  Liberia.  It  was  reported  that  some  of  them  were  eaten  by  canni 
bals.  All  that  were  able  to  do  so  returned  to  Virginia,  Lynchburg  Vir 
ginian,  Oct.  19,  1865. 

!For  discussion  of  emigration  schemes  pro  and  con  see  the  Virginia 
newspapers  during  the  summer  of  1865  and  early  part  of  1866.  Enquirer 
editorial  March  17,  1866,  favors  "diffusion  of  the  colored  population" 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-67  17 

While  the  people  of  Virginia  thus  fully  accepted  the 
logical  results  of  the  war  and  granted  to  the  negro  his  per 
sonal  freedom,  they  were  not  in  1865  or  1866  prepared  to 
extend  to  him  the  franchise,  to  admit  him  into  the  jury 
box,  to  permit  him  to  testify  in  cases  in  which  white  par 
ties  alone  were  interested,  to  come  into  the  State  from  any 
other  state  or  to  intermarry  with  the  whites.  His  rights 
in  property  were  secured  to  him  by  the  laws  existing  prior 
to  1860,  which  permitted  free  negroes  to  own  personal  and 
real  property.2 


CHAPTEE  III. 
THE  EFFECT  OF  EMANCIPATION  ON  THE  NEGROES. 

Early  in  the  war  negroes  began  to  desert  their  masters 
and  to  seek  refuge  within  the  Federal  lines.  With  the 
progress  of  the  struggle  this  movement  grew  stronger  until 
the  proper  disposal  of  the  fleeing  negroes  became  quite  a 
serious  problem.  From  the  first  they  realized  that  this 
contest  was  in  a  large  measure  concerning  themselves.  In 
many  a  cabin  the  glad  word  was  whispered  that  the  day 
for  the  oppressed  to  '  ;come  up  out  of  Egypt' ?  was  at  hand. 
Later  they  heard  that  the  invading  hosts  of  the  North  were 
coming  to  greet  them  as  "men  and  brothers."3 

throughout  the  whole  country  as  a  solution  of  the  question,  as  that  will 
give  Northern  people  a  correct  idea  of  negroes  and  prevent  the  blunder  of 
equality  in  the  South  by  Congressional  interference. 

2For  the  status  of  free  negroes  before  the  war,  see  Code  of  1860;  Bal- 
lagh,  A  History  of  Slavery  in  Virginia  (passim). 

3For  a  full  account  of  negro  refugees  and  the  disposal  of  them  by  the 
Federal  authorities,  see  (passim)  McCarthy,  "Lincoln's  Plan  of  Recon 
struction." 


18  Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-67 

Most  of  the  slaves  remained  at  home  until  the  close  of 
the  war  and  performed  their  usual  tasks.  The  old  routine 
of  the  plantation  life  was  on  the  surface  little  disturbed. 
They  continued  to  plant  and  to  harvest  the  crops,  to  care 
for  and  protect  the  wives  and  children  of  their  masters, 
most  of  whom  were  in  the  Confederate  army.  From  the 
first  to  the  last  Virginia  was  the  battleground  of  the  war. 
From  first  Manassas  to  Appomattox  it  felt  the  mightiest 
shocks  of  the  conflict.  The  Valley,  Northern  Virginia  and 
the  Tidewater  were  overrun  by  the  contending  armies.  By 
the  attrition  of  the  contest  slavery  was  worn  out  in  these 
parts  of  the  State.  Even  in  these  sections  most  of  the 
slaves  remained  with  their  masters,  but  slavery  as  a  vital 
institution  was  gone.  In  a  large  part  of  the  State  the 
negroes  remained  on  the  farms  only  because  they  did  not 
know  what  else  to  do,  not  because  they  did  not  realize  that 
slavery  was  dead.4  So  effective  had  been  the  war,  the 
movement  of  the  armies,  and  the  dissemination  of  hope  and 
of  opinions  favorable  to  freedom,  that  in  the  summer  of 
1864  the  number  of  negroes  practically  free  was  estimated 
by  the  North  American  Eeview  at  1,300,000  in  the  seced 
ing  States.5  Of  this  number  Virginia  had  her  proportional 
share.  Jefferson  Davis  at  the  same  time  placed  the  num 
ber  of  negroes  practically  free  at  3, 000, 000. 5  This  agita 
tion  by  the  year  1865  had  shattered  the  old  plantation  life; 
its  vitality  was  gone. 

From  1862  to  1865  the  stream  of  negroes  deserting 
their  families  and  homes  had  constantly  grown  stronger. 
At  Washington,  Alexandria,  Fredericksburg,  Portsmouth, 
Newport  News  and  Norfolk,  they  were  assembled  and  fed 
by  the  Federal  Government.  This  movement  was  most 
marked  in  the  sections  of  the  State  in  which  the  negroes 
had  been  most  frequently  brought  in  contact  with  the 

4For  the  condition  of  the  old  plantation  life  in  the  spring  and  summer 
of  1865,  see  newspapers  of  that  period. 

5P.  887,  American  Annual  Cyclopaedia,  1864. 


Negroes  and  Their  treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-67  19 

Union  armies.  In  the  counties  of  the  Southside,  however, 
and  in  the  Southwest,  almost  every  negro  remained  on  his 
master's  farm  until  the  close  of  the  war.  On  the  approach 
of  the  Federal  army  many  whites  fled,  taking  with  them 
their  slaves;  in  this  way  the  plantation  life  was  broken  up 
and  negroes  were  congregated  in  certain  places. 

At  the  close  of  hostilities  in  Virginia  the  stream  of 
freedmen  pouring  towards  the  towns  and  the  military  posts 
was  swollen  to  a  river.  Eichmond,  Petersburg,  Lynchburg 
and  all  the  larger  towns  of  the  State  were  crowded  with 
homeless  and  penniless  negroes.  The  number  of  negroes  in 
Eichmond  in  the  summer  of  1865  was  estimated  at  30,000, 
which  indicated  that  at  least  15,000  strange  negroes  were  in 
the  city.  Squalid  villages  of  freedmen  grew  up  at  the 
various  towns  along  the  Chesapeake  Bay,  at  Alexandria, 
at  Arlington,  and  at  numerous  other  points  throughout  the 
State.  Still  the  movement  of  the  negroes  was  from  the 
country  to  the  city.  So  serious  had  the  matter  become  that 
the  Federal  authorities  issued  order  after  order  urging  the 
freedmen  to  remain  on  the  farms.  At  last  military  orders 
positively  forbade  negroes  to  leave  the  communities  where 
they  were  unless  it  was  absolutely  impossible  for  them  to 
find  work  there.  These  orders  doubtless  deterred  many 
from  moving  to  the  towns.6 

The  increase  of  the  negro  population  was  especially 
marked  in  the  cities  held  directly  by  the  military  authori 
ties,  because  the  negroes  there  expected  to  be  fed  by  Fed- 

6For  facts  in  regard  to  the  movement  of  the  freedmen,  see  Official 
Records  of  War  of  Rebellion,  serial  97,  pp.  647,  932,  933,  1005,  1086,  1159, 
1185,  1186,  1288,  1296;  Richmond  Times,  July  14,  1865;  Charlottesville 
Chronicle,  Feb.  28,  1867 ;  Waddell,  History  of  Augusta  County,  pp.  335- 
341;  Bruce,  Plantation  Negro  as  a  Freeman,  pp.  176,  177;  Richmond 
Times,  July  14,  1865;  Lynchburg  Virginian,  Sept.  7,  1865;  Messages  and 
Documents  of  the  U.  S.  Government,  1866-1867,  p.  668;  Col.  O.  Brown's 
report,  Lynchburg  Virginian,  Jan.  2,  1866;  Order  of  Col.  J.  iShaw,  Jr., 
Richmond  Times,  Aug.  8,  1865;  Gen.  Gregg's  General  Order  No.  15, 
Lynchburg  Virginian,  June  1,  1865;  Daily  Enquirer,  March  22,  1866,  April 
18,  1867;  Republic,  Aug.  10,  1865. 


20  Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-67 

eral  quartermasters  or  agents  of  the  Freedmen's  Bureau. 
Many  of  them  doubtless  felt  that  their  newly  found  freedom 
was  too  good  to  be  true,  and  were  fearful  that  they  should 
again  be  remanded  to  slavery,  unless  protected  by  the 
agents  of  the  United  States  Government,  which  they  felt 
had  secured  for  them  the  liberty  which  they  enjoyed. 
Many  of  all  classes  were  drawn  away  from  their  old  homes 
and  trades  to  the  idleness  and  vice  of  the  cities,  yet  most  of 
the  deserters  were  able-bodied  young  negroes  who  left  their 
old,  young  and  helpless  behind  as  a  burden  on  their  former 
owners.  In  their  new  places  of  abode  they  were  very 
ready  to  forget  their  wives  whom  chey  had  left  behind  and 
contract  new  matrimonial  obligations  without  much  appre 
ciation  of  the  sanctity  of  this  relation.  The  negro  women 
especially,  freed  from  the  discipline  of  the  old  life,  often 
became  very  dissolute.7 

In  some  cases  the  former  owners  were  expected  to  care 
for  the  helpless  freedmen.  The  Federal  authorities,  how 
ever,  usually  recognized  that  the  burden  of  supporting 
dependent  negroes  was  no  longer  properly  chargeable  to 
their  former  owners,  but  had  been  shifted  to  the  relatives 
of  the  paupers,  to  the  community,  or  to  the  Federal  Gov 
ernment.  It  must  be  said,  however,  that  many  of  these 
deserted  unfortunates  were  cheerfully  supported  by  their 
old  masters  on  account  of  affection  and  humanity.8 

A  great  restlessness  to  get  off  the  farms  where  they 
had  been  held  as  slaves  seized  almost  all  negroes  every 
where,  but  some  faithful  slaves  refused  to  leave  their  old 
homes  and  continued  to  live  with  their  former  masters  and 
serve  them  till  death. 

7For  effect  of  emancipation  on  the  marriage  relations  and  morals  of 
the  negroes,  see  Ruffin,  The  Negro  as  a  Political  and  Social  Factor,  (pas 
sim) ;  Bruce,  The  Plantation  Negro  as  a  Freeman,  chap.  II;  Gen.  Hal- 
leek's  report,  Official  Records  of  the  War  of  the  Rebellion,  serial  97,  p.  1296. 

SRichmond  Times,  July  7, 1865 ;  General  Order  No.  13,  Lynchburg  Vir 
ginian,  June  2,  1865;  Official  Records  of  War  of  Rebellion,  serial  97,  pp. 
932,  933. 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-67  21 

It  was  estimated,  in  July,  1865,  that  at  least  50,000 
able-bodied  negroes  had  deserted  their  helpless  ones  and 
gone  to  the  cities  of  Virginia  or  the  North.  Not  only  had 
able-bodied  negroes  nocked  to  the  towns  and  military  posts, 
but  many  helpless  old  men,  women  and  children  were  hud 
dled  together  in  wretched  hovels.  In  some  instances  thirty 
negroes  were,  in  the  summer  of  1865,  occupying  the  rooms 
formerly  considered  barely  comfortable  for  two.  In  filthy 
improvised  huts  around  the  various  military  posts  and  in 
the  freedmen's  towns  the  mortality  of  the  negroes  was 
appalling.9 

It  was  felt  by  some  of  the  Federal  army  officers  that 
there  was  danger  of  *  'the  land  going  to  waste' '  on  account 
of  the  desertion  of  the  laboring  population.  They  pro 
posed  to  treat  as  "vagabonds"  the  freedmen  who  were 
away  from  their  old  homes  and  without  employment.0 
Prior  to  the  war  it  had  been  claimed  that  the  effects  of 
freedom  on  the  free  negroes  in  Virginia  had  been  disas 
trous,  "the  successive  censuses,  particularly  from  1840  to 
1860,  showing  a  great  physical  and  moral  deterioration  on 
the  part  of  the  free  blacks  whether  compared  with  the 


9Lynchburg  Virginian,  Jan.  2,1865;  Richmond  Times,  June  27,  July 
8,  7,  1865;  Messages  and  Documents  of  U.  8.  Government,  1866-7,  p.  668, 
1868-9,  p.  508;  Official  Records  of  War  of  Rebellion,  p.  1215,  serial  97; 
American  Annual  Cyclopaedia,  1865,  p.  376. 

The  Whig,  Oct.  2,  1866,  refers  to  a  "hallucination"  amongst  the 
negroes  that  the  great  mortality  amongst  them  was  not  due  to  disease 
but  poison.  In  the  Tidewater  region  they  were  living  largely  on  melons, 
stale  fish  and  cabbage  but  believed  in  many  places  that  the  white  people 
had  "tricked"  them.  They  were  treated  by  quack  negro  doctors  with 
decoctions  of  herbs,  etc.  They  would  not  trust  white  doctors.  Nov.  5, 
1866,  the  same  newspaper  declares  that  the  number  of  negroes  was  great 
ly  diminished.  In  the  Enquirer,  Nov.  15,  1865,  it  is  claimed  that  fifty  per 
cent,  of  the  negroes  had  perished  from  disease.  The  mortality  of  the 
negroes  was  not  as  great  as  it  was  believed  to  be  at  the  time. 

°See  orders  regarding  negroes,  Official  Records  of  the  War  of  Rebel 
lion,  serial  97,  pp.  1005, 1086,  1173,  1291 ;  Order  of  Gen.  Gregg,  published  in 
Lynchburg  Virginian,  June  1,  1865. 


22  Negroes  and  Their  treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-67 

slaves  or  with  the  whites."1  In  1865  the  negroes  seemed  to 
be  rapidly  becoming  a  race  of  vagrants  and  idlers.  Ne 
groes  possess  a  remarkably  strong  and  persistent  local  at 
tachment;  yet  they  were  so  anxious  to  assert  their  liberty 
and  to  convince  themselves  that  they  were  really  free,  that 
they  felt  in  most  cases  that  it  was  necessary  to  desert  the 
farms  where  they  had  been  held  as  slaves  and  to  seek  homes 
with  some  neighboring  farmer,  even  if  they  did  not  have 
the  courage  or  think  it  necessary  to  leave  the  entire  com 
munity.  Many  of  the  largest  farms  were  almost  depopu 
lated  of  their  former  negroes,  and  their  places  were  filled 
either  by  those  who  had  come  in  from  a  distance  or  from 
the  neighboring  plantations.2  Fidelity  and  timidity  in 
fluenced  some  to  remain  with  their  former  masters  but 
their  number  was  not  large.  A  vast  majority  of  the 
negroes  changed  their  habitations  immediately  after  the 
war  or  within  the  next  three  years. 

In  their  new  homes  they  frequently  were  not  able  to 
find,  even  when  they  wished  it,  the  forms  of  labor  to  which 
they  had  been  trained.  As  has  been  mentioned  before,  the 
plantations  were  little  industrial  communities  in  which  the 
division  of  labor  system  was  necessarily  adopted  to  a  con 
siderable  extent.  Some  of  the  slaves  were  house  servants 
and  personal  attendants  of  their  masters;  others  were 
taught  to  spin  and  weave;  others  were  blacksmiths,  har 
ness  makers  and  carpenters;  the  great  body  of  the  slaves 
were  mere  field  hands.  When  the  old  plantation  life  was 
broken  up  these  freedmen  were  very  poorly  prepared  for 
the  new  society  in  which  they  must  compete  with  the  white 
mechanics  and  laborers  who  had  been  trained  in  more  lines 
of  work  as  well  as  to  a  higher  degree  of  skill  in  the  mechan 
ical  trades.  By  these  white  competitors  their  employment 
was  rendered  more  difficult  and  uncertain.  This  had  a 

iMinor's  Institutes,  Vol.  I,  p.  168. 

2Bruce,  Plantation  Negro  as  a  Freeman,  chap.  XII. 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-67  23 

tendency  still  further  to  demoralize  the  negroes  and  force 
them  to  drift  from  place  to  place.  It  is  needless  to  say 
that  most  plantation  negroes  found  themselves  out  of  place 
in  the  cities,  where  there  was  not  a  great  demand  for  such 
a  large  body  of  absolutely  unskilled  laborers  as  flocked  to 
them  in  1865  and  1866.3 


CHAPTER  IV. 
DISTURBING  FORCES. 

During  the  two  years  from  the  spring  of  1865  to  the 
passage  of  the  Reconstruction  Acts  in  March,  1867,  the 
negroes  fell  largely  under  the  influence  of  their  preachers 
and  a  class  of  native  whites  who  acted  as  leaders  and  ad 
visers  to  the  freedmen.  The  so-called  "scalawags,"  in 
many  instances,  had  been  known  for  their  cruelty  and  in 
justice  to  the  negroes.  Many  of  them  had  been  slave  over 
seers,  some  of  them  slave  owners  before  the  war;  yet  this 
reputation  did  not  appear  to  be  any  obstacle  to  their  win 
ning  the  confidence  of  the  freedmen.4  By  artful  insinua 
tion  they  won  the  favor  of  the  colored  people,  and  in  a 
large  degree  succeeded  in  alienating  them  from  their  old 
friends  and  masters.  The  motives  of  this  class  were  entire 
ly  selfish  and  their  influence  wholly  disorganizing  and  de 
moralizing  at  a  time  when  society,  revolutionized  by  the 

3See  the  newspapers  of  that  period  for  the  demoralized  state  of  labor. 

4It  was  alleged  that  Rev.  Mr.  Hunnicut,  the  most  influential  "scala 
wag"  in  the  early  Reconstruction  days,  had  been  cruel  to  slaves  before 
the  war. 


24  Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6? 

events  of  the  war  and  by  emancipation,  called  for  co-oper 
ation  and  confidence  in  all  classes. 

Another  class,  numerically  very  small,  was  made  up 
of  whites  who  had  come  to  the  State  as  agents  of  the 
Freedmen's  Bureau,  teachers  or  adventurers.5  The  mo 
tives  of  almost  all  the  teachers  and  of  many  of  the  Bureau 
agents  were  unselfish;  yet  their  presence  and  the  ideas  most 
of  them  entertained  in  regard  to  the  place  of  the  negro  dis 
posed  most  of  the  blacks  to  become  dissatisfied  with  their 
position  as  mere  "free  negroes." 

Many  of  the  teachers  had  come  from  the  original  abo 
lition  homes  of  the  North  and  were  thoroughly  indoctri 
nated  with  the  idea  of  the  equality  of  all  men.  They 
called  on  the  negroes  and  extended  to  them  other  social 
courtesies  that  shocked  the  whites  and  encouraged  the 
freedmen  to  demand  equal  privileges  from  all  the  whites; 
but  it  is  untrue  that  they  favored  i  'miscegenation"  except 
in  rare  instances.  Most  of  them  were  pure  and  self-deny 
ing  women  who  looked  upon  their  work  as  a  call  from  God 
and  regarded  all  human  beings  as  entitled  to  equal  rights 
before  the  law  and  in  society.  Yet,  despite  the  best  of  in 
tentions,  the  teachers  by  their  radical  ideas  did  much  to 
create  and  foster  in  the  freedmeu  an  aversion  to  taking  up 
their  old  familiar  labor  with  the  shovel  and  the  hoe.  They 
preferred  to  speculate  about  their  abstract  rights  rather 
than  to  avail  themselves  of  the  privileges  actually  before 
them.6 

The  Freedmen's  Court,  consisting  of  three  judges,  one 
representing  the  whites;  the  second,  the  blacks;  the  third, 
the  United  States  Government,  did  much  to  keep  the  ne 
groes  agitated  and  expectant.  Many  of  these  courts  gave  a 

6For  baneful  influence  of  clerical  adventurers  and  radicals,  see  Whig, 
Sept.  6,  Sept.  12,  1866,  Feb.  4,  May  11,  1867;  Dispatch,  May  13,  1867;  Docu 
mentary  History  of  Reconstruction  (passim),  edited  by  W.  L.  Fleming. 

6About  this  time  the  negroes  began  to  talk  a  great  deal  of  their  desire 
to  be  "treated  as  a  man  and  a  brother." 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-67  25 

ready  ear  to  all  the  complaints  of  the  negroes,  however 
worthless.  On  the  information  of  mere  negro  children, 
aged  and  respectable  citizens  were  notified  to  appear  before 
these  courts  to  answer  for  the  most  trivial  offenses.  The 
records  of  these  courts  show  many  surprising  verdicts. 
The  court  at  Lynchburg  ordered  the  defendant  to  pay  a 
colored  freedwoman  one  dollar  and  fifty  cents  for  "cross 
and  unjust  conduct. m  It  was  reported  by  Gen.  Fullerton, 
who  had  been  sent  by  President  Johnson  on  a  tour  of  in 
spection  throughout  the  South,  that  in  Virginia  "these 
agents  take  the  widest  latitude  in  the  exercise  of  their  judi 
cial  functions,  trying  questions  involving  title  to  real  es 
tate,  contracts,  crimes  and  even  actions  affecting  the  mar 
ital  relations.  We  witnessed  the  trial  of  a  divorce  case  be 
fore  the  sub-agent  at  Charlottesville.  The  trial  occupied 
about  ten  minutes  and  resulted  in  a  decree  of  divorce. 
In  many  places  where  the  agents  are  not  men  of  capacity 
and  integrity  a  very  unsatisfactory  condition  of  affairs  pre 
vails.  This  originates  in  the  arbitrary,  unnecessary  and 
offensive  interference  of  the  agents  of  the  Bureau  with  the 
relation  between  planters  and  their  hired  freedmeu,  causing 
vexatious  delays  in  the  prosecution  of  labor,  and  imposing 
expenses  and  costs  in  suits  before  themselves  about  trivial 
matters.  The  effects  produced  by  the  actions  of  this  class 
of  agents  is  bitterness  and  antagonism  between  the  whites 
and  the  freedmen  and  expectations  on  the  part  of  the  freed - 
men  that  can  never  be  realized."' 

The  friends  of  the  Bureau  strenuously  insisted  that  the 
Bureau  courts  were  absolutely  necessary  to  secure  anything 
like  justice  for  the  negroes;  that  the  antagonism  between 
the  whites  and  the  blacks  was  not  the  result  of  the  presence 
of  the  Bureau  agents;  and  that  the  disturbed  state  of  socie 
ty  existed,  not  because  of  the  Bureau,  but  in  spite  of  it. 

^Lynchburg  Virginian,  Jan.  2, 1866. 

8Pp.  64-66,  House  Document  No.  120,  1st  Ses.  39th  Congress. 


26  Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6? 

The  object  of  the  Bureau  was  to  protect  the  interests 
of  the  colored  people  in  the  courts,  in  contracts  and  in 
every  relation  of  life.9  Doubtless  it  did  accomplish  its 
purpose,  in  part,  at  least;  yet  the  Bureau  had  a  tendency 
to  prolong  the  period  of  transition  from  slavery  to  freedom 
by  keeping  the  negroes  in  a  state  of  excitement,  since  they 
looked  upon  the  Bureau  as  a  visible  demonstration  of  the 
power  and  purpose  of  the  United  States  Government  from 
which  they  had  already  received  their  freedom,  and  from 
which  they  were  led  by  many  agents  of  the  Bureau  to  be 
lieve  that  they  had  not  yet  received  half  of  the  good  things 

9Compare  the  mild  Freedmen's  Bureau  Bill  of  March  3,  1865,  (p.  141, 
App.  Congressional  Globe,  1864-1865) ,  with  the  drastic  Bureau  Bill  of  July 
16,  1866,  (pp.  366-367,  App.  Congressional  Globe,  1865,  1866). 

Negro  refugees  flocked  to  the  Union  army  during  the  war.  Some  of 
them  were  put  to  work  on  forts  and  fortifications,  others  were  concen 
trated  in  camps  and  colonies  under  army  officers,  usually  chaplains.  The 
Freedmen's  Bureau,  with  Gen.  O.  O.  Howard  at  its  head,  was  put  in  con 
trol  of  all  negroes.  The  Bureau  was  practically  independent  of  the  mili 
tary  and  civil  governments  in  the  South. 

"Its  principal  legal  activities  were  relief  work,  education,  regulation 
of  labor,  and  the  administration  of  justice."  *  *  *  *  "It  regulated 
contracts,  wages,  hours,  rations,  clothing  and  quarters."  *  *  *  *  In 
all  that  related  to  labor  the  Bureau  was  supreme.  "The  Bureau  courts 
had  jurisdiction  over  all  cases  that  arose  between  blacks  or  between 
blacks  and  whites."  It  "supervised  the  civil  courts,  from  which  cases 
relating  to  negroes  were  often  removed  and  the  decisions  of  which  were 
set  aside."  *  *  *  * 

"The  income  of  the  Bureau  was  derived  from  the  sale  of  confiscated 
Confederate  and  private  property,  from  fees,  rents,  taxes,  county  funds, 
gifts  from  individuals  and  associations,  and  from  appropriations  by  Con 
gress.  *  *  *  *  In  the  great  majority  of  the  black  communities  there 
was,  at  the  end  of  the  war,  no  destitution  and  had  the  negroes  stayed 
at  home  and  worked  there  would  have  been  little  want,  but  the  distribu 
tion  of  rations  caused  them  to  crowd  into  the  towns,  and  much  suffering 
and  disease  resulted.  In  the  later  years  of  the  Bureau  rations  were  used 
simply  as  a  means  of  organizing  a  black  political  party.  The  labor  regu 
lations  were  as  a  rule  good  in  theory  but  absurd  in  practice.  *  *  *  * 
The  education  given  the  negro  was  not  suited  to  his  needs  and  the  doc 
trines  of  social  and  political  equality  taught  in  some  of  the  schools 
aroused  the  opposition  of  the  whites.  The  negroes  as  often  as  the  whites 
were  cheated  and  blackmailed  by  the  agents  of  the  Bureau."  Fleming, 
Documents  Relating  to  Reconstruction. 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6?  27 

in  store  for  them.  This  feeling  rendered  many  negroes  un 
willing  to  labor.  They  preferred  to  do  as  little  work  as 
possible  and  to  wait  for  the  abasement  of  the  whites  and 
their  own  exaltation. 

The  number  of  white  adventurers  in  Virginia  from 
1865  to  1867  was  not  large.  In  fact,  this  class  was  never 
numerous  in  Virginia.  From  the  close  of  the  war  to  the 
passage  of  the  Eeconstruction  Acts  in  March,  1867,  a  con 
siderable  number  of  white  people,  it  is  impossible  to  de 
termine  how  many,  had  come  to  Virginia  in  an  unofficial 
capacity.  Some  of  these  had  come  to  cast  in  their  fortunes 
with  the  State  and  to  assist  in  its  development.  Others 
had  come  as  mere  adventurers  hoping  to  profit  by  the  pros 
tration  and  the  disorganization  of  society  without  render 
ing  any  equivalent.  This  last  class  found  the  negroes  the 
readiest  road  to  influence  and  to  wealth.  They  dissemi 
nated  amongst  the  credulous  blacks  alluring  reports  of 
what  was  being  done  for  them  in  the  North.0 

The  Union  League,  a  secret  society  in  the  interest  of 
the  Eepublican  party,  was  organized  throughout  the  State 
in  1866. :  Its  purpose  was  to  attach  the  negroes  firmly  to 

°The  "scalawags"  and  "carpetbaggers"  were  not  so  influential  in  1865 
and  1866  as  they  were  after  the  passage  of  the  Reconstruction  Acts  in 
March,  1867.  The  character  and  influence  of  the  "scalawags"  and  "car 
petbaggers"  are  faithfully  portrayed  in  Thomas  Nelson  Page's  novel,  "Red 
Rock." 

JIt  is  perhaps  impossible  to  determine  when  Leagues  were  first  organ 
ized  in  Virginia.  It  was  probably  as  early  as  1865.  The  League  was  gen 
erally  organized  throughout  the  State  in  the  fall  and  winter  of  1866  and 
the  spring  of  1867.  It  was  organized  in  Ohio  in  1862.  After  the  war  the 
League  favored  negro  suffrage  and  radical  measures  in  the  South.  The 
Philadelphia  League  sent  out  more  than  4,000,000  pamphlets  in  three 
years  after  the  war.  The  publications  of  the  League  largely  consisted  in 
stories  of  outrages  upon  freedmen  in  the  South.  It  sent  teachers  to  the 
South  and  strove  to  promote  the  interests  of  the  freedmen.  The  League 
was  originally  composed  of  whites.  About  the  time  the  negroes  were  en 
franchised  by  Congressional  acts  negroes  were  admitted  in  large  num 
bers.  Thereupon  most  of  the  whites  withdrew  leaving  the  control  of  the 
organization  to  the  "scalawags,"  "carpetbaggers"  and  the  negro  leaders. 


28  Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6? 

the  Eepublican  party  and  to  the  organizers  of  the  League. 
It  was  made  up  of  negroes,  "scalawags'7  and  "carpetbag 
gers."  It  had  a  large  number  of  offices  to  which  the  col 
ored  members  eagerly  aspired.  It  held  nocturnal  meetings 
in  which  the  colored  people  were  urged  to  "stand  by  the 
Union/'  which  they  understood  as'meaning  to  stand  by  the 
Eepublican  party  and  to  oppose  the  great  mass  of  whites 
in  the  community.  The  leaders  of  these  meetings  were 
the  negro  preachers,  the  "scalawags"  and  an  occasional 
"carpetbagger."  The  appointment  of  the  Committee  on 
Eeconstruction,  the  Congressional  discussion  of  the  Preed- 
men's  Bureau  Bill,  the  Civil  Eights  Bill  and  other  matters 
touching  the  negroes  gave  an  ever- quickening  interest  in 
the  political  discussions  of  the  League.2 

At  this  time  the  colored  clergy  became  in  a  large  de 
gree  the  political  leaders  of  their  people.3  They  were  sent 
as  delegates  to  the  numerous  conventions  called  by  the 
negroes  or  "scalawags.''4  They  were  the  chief  speakers  on 
all  occasions.  They  wrote  letters  to  the  newspapers  in  the 
State  and  in  the  North,  urging  their  claims  and  declaring 
their  grievances.  They  wished  negroes  to  be  admitted  to 

Every  negro  was  considered  a  member  by  virtue  of  his  color.  At  the 
weekly  meetings  generally  held  in  negro  churches  and  school  houses  inflam 
matory  speeches  promising  confiscation  of  property  and  social  equality 
were  made  by  white  and  black  leaders.  The  "W  hig  calls  the  Leagues  "only 
mischief  hatching  concerns  and  nuisances."  This  was  the  general  opin 
ion  of  the  majority  of  the  whites. 

2The  facts  above  in  regard  to  the  object  of  the  League,  its  officers  and 
its  methods  were  obtained  from  colored  men  who  were  members  of  the 
League.  For  Constitution  and  Ritual  of  the  League,  see  Union  League 
Documents,  edited  by  W.  L.  Fleming,  University  of  West  Virginia. 

3The  great  body  of  the  negroes  were  unable  to  read  the  newspapers. 
They  derived  about  all  their  information  from  the  public  speakers ;  most 
of  these  orators  were  negro  preachers.  See  Ruffin,  The  Negro  as  a  Social 
and  Political  Factor. 

4In  a  convention  of  Freedmen  at  Alexandria,  Aug.  2, 1865,  the  preach 
ers  were  present  in  great  numbers.  One  of  them  said:  "I  look  on  this 
convention  as  the  brains  of  Virginia."— The  Republic,  Aug.  4,  1865. 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-67  29 

the  State  University  on  the  same  terms  as  whites;  they  in 
sisted  on  being  called  "Mister;"  they  soon  declared  that 
nothing  short  of  absolute  equality  with  the  whites  in  all 
things  would  satisfy  them.5  The  League,  the  negro 
preachers,  and  the  "scalawags"  had  prepared  the  minds  of 
the  blacks  for  the  Eeconstructiou  Acts  of  1867.  After  the 
passage  of  these  bills  these  adventurers  seized  control  of 
the  State  for  several  years. 

The  aforesaid  disturbing  forces  and  the  undetermined 
status  of  the  freedmen  kept  the  negroes  agitated,  the  labor 
supply  uncertain,  and  labor  contracts  insecure.  Conse 
quently  the  freedmen  were  dissatisfied  and  restless;  indus 
try  was  languishing;  vagrancy  was  prevalent;  colored  chil 
dren  were  unprovided  for,  many  of  the  youth  of  the  land 
were  growing  up  in  idleness  and  crime. 


CHAPTEE  V. 

THE  EVOLUTION  OF  A  SYSTEM  OF  HIRED  LABOR. 

The  emancipation  of  the  slaves  broke  up  the  old  indus 
tries  in  a  large  part  of  Virginia.  For  more  than  two  hun 
dred  years  the  people  in  the  oldest  and  most  populous 
parts  of  the  State  had  been  accustomed  to  slave  labor  with 
all  its  attendant  circumstances  and  consequences.  Many  of 
the  people  had  little  or  no  knowledge  of  free  labor  and  how 
to  deal  with  it.  They  had  little  hope  that  their  iormer 

5A  convention  composed  of  160  negroes  and  50  whites  met  in  Rich 
mond  April  17,  1867.  One  of  the  resolutions  of  this  convention  made 
great  promises  to  poor  laboring  white  men,  in  order  to  win  their  support 
against  the  "rapacious  and  arrogant''  as  they  styled  the  whites  of  the 
State.  P.  758,  American  Annual  Cyclopaedia,  1867. 


30  Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-67 

slaves  would  serve  them  faithfully  or  efficiently  for  wages. 
It  has  already  been  shown  how  the  negroes,  excited  and 
agitated  by  their  sudden  liberty,  were  leaving  the  old  plan 
tation. 

The  Freedmen's  Bureau,  in  the  spring  and  summer  of 
1865,  was  being  organized  throughout  the  State  to  look  af 
ter  the  interests  of  the  colored  people.  Federal  soldiers 
were  posted  at  all  the  prominent  points  in  the  State.6  It 
was  an  additional  source  of  weakness  and  embarrassment 
that  the  State  government  at  Eichmond  had  fallen  with  the 
Confederacy  in  the  spring  of  1865.  The  ' 'restored  govern 
ment'7  of  Virginia  at  Alexandria  and  later  at  Eichmond 
was  without  much  respect  or  popular  support.  The 
county  governments  were  therefore  unable  to  take  vigorous 
measures  either  in  punishing  vagrancy  and  crime  or  in  re 
organizing  the  community.  All  initiative  in  restoring 
society  to  its  normal  estate  was  discouraged  if  not  positive 
ly  prohibited.  The  white  people  were  kept  in  suspense  in 
regard  to  the  future  policy  of  the  Federal  Government. 
The  Civil  Eights  Bill  and  Negro  Suffrage  were  beginning  to 
be  discussed  by  some  of  the  leaders  of  Northern  public 
opinion. 

The  outlook  was  gloomy.  Something  had  to  be  done 
at  once,  or  famine  would  soon  stalk  through  the  land. 
The  planting  season  was  far  advanced  in  Virginia  when 
hostilities  closed  in  the  spring  of  1865.  Light  crops  were 
planted,  but  it  seemed  thafc  it  was  going  to  be  impossible  to 
have  them  cultivated  or  harvested  for  lack  of  laborers  in 
many  parts  of  the  State  where  the  negroes  were  the  chief 
farm  hands. 

Many  of  the  planters  at  once  agreed  to  give  the  negroes 
board  and  a  share  in  the  crops  that  they  had  already  helped 
to  plant,  on  the  condition  that  they  continue  on  the  farms 
and  assist  in  cultivating  and  harvesting  them.  Not  a  few 

6Soldiers  were  posted  at  ten  points  in  May,  1866.   House  Document^ 
No.  120,  1st  Ses.  39th  Congress. 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-67  31 

freedmen  accepted  these  terms.  This  plan  seems  to  have 
met  the  approbation  of  the  most  prudent  of  the  military 
commanders,  and  orders  were  issued  from  time  to  time 
urging  the  planters  to  adopt  such  a  policy  and  the  negroes 
to  accept  such  terms.  The  negroes  accepting  these  terms 
left  their  old  masters  and  homes  about  the  middle  of  the 
winter  of  1865-66,  when  they  had  received  their  share  of 
the  crop,  which  they  generally  felt  was  too  small. 

The  farmers  of  Virginia  feared  that  the  negroes  as 
freedmen  could  never  be  induced  to  become  faithful  and 
regular  laborers.  In  1865  it  seemed  that  a  large  number,  if 
not  nearly  all  of  them,  would  soon  become  worthless  and 
possibly  as  turbulent  as  the  free  negroes  of  the  West  Indies. 
In  reality,  emancipation  was  attended  by  less  permanent 
idleness  and  disorganization  of  labor  than  was  expected, 
because  the  discipline  and  habits  of  labor  which  slavery 
had  taught  the  negro  came  to  his  relief  when  he  later 
found  that  he  had  to  work  or  starve.  The  climatic  condi 
tions  of  Virginia  rendered  it  impossible  for  them  to  become 
permanent  idlers  and  live  as  they  could,  and  probably 
would  have  lived  had  they  been  favored  by  a  tropical 
climate  and  easy  conditions  of  life  such  as  Hayti  affords. 
However  that  may  be,  when  the  alternative  of  work  or 
starvation  was  squarely  presented,  most  of  them  chose 
work.7 

Perhaps  it  is  easy  to  exaggerate  the  actual  disorganiza 
tion  of  labor  that  really  did  take  place  in  1865.  The 
strangeness  of  the  situation  demoralized  the  whites  quite 
as  much  as  the  blacks.  As  has  already  been  said,  the 
planters  in  a  large  part  of  the  State  were  unfamiliar  with 
free  common  labor,  its  dignity  and  its  employment.8  At 
the  same  time  the  late  slaves  had  much  to  learn  of  their 

TBruce's  Plantation  Negro  as  a  Freeman,  discusses   (passim)   the  ef 
fect  of  emancipation  on  the  industry  of  the  negroes. 

8It  was  the  opinion  of  Col.  O.  Brown  and  other  Bureau   agents  that 
this  unf amiliarity  with  free  labor  greatly  increased  the  difficulties  of 


32  Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6? 

true  position,  their  rights  and  duties  as  free  laborers. 
These  conditions  rendered  the  solution  of  the  problems  of 
1865-66  still  more  difficult. 

So  despondent  were  many  in  regard  to  the  negro  as  a 
free  laborer  that  they  thought  it  would  be  necessary  to  call  in 
white  laborers  to  take  his  place.  White  immigrants  were 
earnestly  sought;  immigration  societies  were  formed 
throughout  the  State;  numerous  enterprises  encouraging 
white  immigration  were  chartered  by  the  Legislature  during 
the  session  of  1865- 66 ;9  a  State  Commissioner  of  Immigra 
tion  was  appointed.  It  was  openly  avowed  that  it  was 
their  purpose  to  induce  white  men  to  come  to  Virginia 
from  England,  Scotland,  Germany,  Poland  or  any  other 
European  country  to  take  the  place  of  the  colored  laborers. 
This  was  not  through  any  hostility  to  the  negro  as  a  man 
or  as  a  laborer,  for  the  Virginians  have  always  preferred 
the  colored  laborer  to  any  other;  but  it  arose  from  a  belief 
that  the  freedman  could  not  be  induced  to  work.  In  the 
State  Farmers'  Convention  held  in  Eichmond  in  November, 
1866,  to  discuss  the  labor  situation,  it  was  declared  that  it 
was  "impracticable  to  depend  on  the  present  labor  sup 
ply;"  that  white  labor  was  cheaper  at  high  wages  than 
colored  labor  at  lower  wages.  Still  it  was  felt  by  the  Con 
vention  that  the  number  of  whites  that  could  be  induced  to 
come  to  Virginia  would  be  very  inadequate  to  the  demand.0 

emancipation.     See  Col.  Brown's  report   in  Lynchburg  Virginian,  Jan.  2 
1866. 

For  opinion  of  the  f reedmen  as  free  laborers,  see  Whig,  Jan.  3,  1866 ; 
Jan.  10,  1866;  Feb.  19,  1866;  April  16,  1866;  Sept.  11,  1866;  Enquirer,  Nov. 
1.  1865;  Nov.  2,  1865;  Nov.  5,  1865;  Nov.  17, 1865;  June  22, 1866;  Dispatch, 
July  8,  1867.  General  Howard  expresses  confidence  that  the  negro  free 
laborer  will  be  successful  and  insists  that  the  right  of  negroes  to  rent  or 
buy  land  shall  be  guaranteed  to  them.  He  also  thinks  that  joint  stock 
companies  to  help  poor  blacks  should  be  formed.  Enquirer,  Dec.  22,  1865. 

9  Acts  1865-66,  pp.  234-236,  287,  288,  289,  290,  293,  296-298.  Richmond 
Times,  Aug.  3,  1865;  Whig,  Nov.  8,  1866 ;  Enquirer,  July  11,  1866. 

"Lynchburg  Virginian,  Nov.  24,  1866. 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-67  33 

The  number  of  white  immigrants  to  Virginia  during  the 
period  from  1865  to  1867  was  inconsiderable.  Most  of 
those  who  did  come  to  the  State  did  not  come  as  laborers 
but  rather  as  capitalists  or  "carpetbaggers."  It  was  clear 
to  most  people  from  the  first  that  the  negroes  would  in  a 
large  part  of  the  State  continue  to  be  the  chief  laborers  for 
many  years  and  that  some  plan  of  utilizing  their  labor  had 
to  be  devised. 

Various  plans  were,  during  the  summer  of  1865,  pro 
posed  by  the  whites  for  the  employment  of  the  negroes. 
The  Freedmen's  Bureau  had  declined  to  fix  a  wage,  but 
thought  it  best  to  leave  the  rate  of  wages  to  the  law  of  sup 
ply  and  demand.1  The  aim  of  the  Bureau  was  simply  to 
secure  fieedom  of  contract  for  the  freedmen  and  to  enforce 
the  contracts  when  made. 

One  attempted  solution  of  this  question  was  for  the 
farmers  to  hold  county  or  district  meetings  to  determine 
the  rate  of  wages  they  would  pay  the  negroes.  These 
meetings  were  held  in  many  of  the  counties  where  the 
negroes  were  numerous.  The  wage  agreed  upon  was  usu 
ally  $5.00  per  month  and  board  for  able-bodied  men,  and 
$3.00  per  month  and  board  for  women  and  boys.2  The 
farmers,  in  some  instances,  agreed  in  these  county  meetings 
not  to  employ  negroes  at  any  price  unless  they  were  able 
to  furnish  testimonials  or  recommendations  from  their  last 
employer,  which  practically  meant  that  a  negro  could  not 
fiud  employment  unless  he  had  the  endorsement  of  his 
former  owner.3 

!Gen.  Howard's  report,  p.  644,  Messages  and  Documents  of  U.  S.  Gov 
ernment,  1866-67. 

2Richmond  Times,  June  15,  1865,  June  20,  1865;  Col.  O.  Brown's  re- 
port,  Lynchburg  Virginian,  Jan.  2,  1866.  Pp.  517,  908,  Globe,  1865-66, 
gives  an  account  of  a  meeting  of  Hanover  county  farmers.  General 
Young's  report,  p.  1158,  serial  No.  97,  Official  Records  of  the  War  of  the 
Rebellion,  also  Carl  Schurz's  opinion,  p.  1305;  Globe,  1865-66;  The  Repub 
lic,  May  19,  1865,  June  3,  1865;  Whig,  Sept.  18,  1866. 

3See  Richmond  Times,  June  20,  1865,  for  account  of  such  a  meeting 
and  resolutions  in  Dinwiddie  county.  Col.  Brown's  report,  Lynchburg 
Virginian,  Jan.  2,  1866. 


34  Negroes  and  Their  treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6? 

Small  as  these  wages  seem,  it  does  not  appear  that 
they  were  unsatisfactory  to  the  negroes  in  some  of  the 
counties  where  they  had  been  agreed  upon.  Indeed  in 
some  parts  of  the  State  the  freedmen  were  glad  enough  to 
work  for  their  board,  at  this  time.4  In  other  counties  the 
demand  for  colored  laborers  was  rather  active  at  $12.00  per 
month.5 

July  24,  1865,  the  Franklin  county  farmers  in  a  meet 
ing  declared:  " Whilst  we  recognize  the  propriety  and 
necessity  of  giving  employment  to  the  negroes  and  of  en 
couraging  them  to  industry  and  good  conduct  by  fair  and 
reasonable  rewards  for  their  labor,  still,  in  consequence  of 
the  many  difficulties  surrounding  the  subject,  we  deem  it 
wholly  impracticable  at  this  time  to  fix  any  regular  stand 
ard  of  wages  for  labor — each  case  must  necessarily  be  gov 
erned  by  the  circumstances  attending  it,  and  in  the  present 
unsettled  and  prostrated  condition  of  the  finances  and  busi 
ness  of  the  country,  laborers  must  be  content  with  moderate 
wages  or  go  without  employment."6 

The  small  wage  fund  and  the  uncertainty  of  the  times 
in  many  parts  of  Virginia  in  1864  and  1866  undoubtedly 
rendered  liberal  wages  impossible.  Col.  Brown,  Assistant 
Commissioner  of  the  Freedmen's  Bureau  in  Virginia,  said 
on  this  subject:  "Stripped  to  a  great  extent  of  ready 
resources  by  the  operations  of  the  war  they  were  unable  to 
allow  those  people  (the  negroes)  their  just  due,  much  less 
charitable  assistance.7'7  Elsewhere  he  explained  the  low 

4Richmond  Times,  June  27,  1865,  said  such  was  the  case  in  Orange, 
Culpeper  and  Fauquier  counties.  See  Peyton's  History  of  Augusta 
County,  p.  340. 

5In  the  Valley  counties  the  demand  for  laborers  at  $12  per  month  as 
farm  hands  exceeded  the  supply.  House  Document  No.  120,  1st  Ses.  39th 
Congress. 

GLynchburg  Virginian,  July  24,  1865.  See  Whig,  Aug.  18,  1865,  for 
account  of  such  meetings. 

TLynchburg  Virginian,  Jan.  2,  18661;  Agricultural  Report,  1865^66, 
pp.  135-136. 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-67  35 

wages  prevailing  in  Virginia  as  the  result  of  an  excessive 
supply  of  laborers  with  a  small  demand.  He  suggested  as 
the  only  solution,  the  emigration  of  at  least  50,000  negroes 
from  the  State.8  It  is  asserted  that  the  wages  paid  un 
skilled  white  and  black  laborers  were  practically  the  same 
at  that  time  and  the  low  wage  paid  the  negroes  was  in  no 
sense  an  effort  to  wrong  them  or  to  discriminate  against 
them.  Nevertheless  it  was  generally  felt  by  the  negroes 
and  by  the  Federal  officers  that  the  purpose  of  these 
county  meetings  was  inimical  to  the  interests  of  the  colored 
laborers.  The  military  officers  generally  disapproved  the 
proceedings  of  these  farmer  meetings  on  the  ground  that 
"the  citizens  will  not  be  permitted  to  band  themselves 
together  for  the  purpose  of  agreeing  on  any  certain  remun 
eration  for  the  labor  of  the  freedmen,  that  being  in  the 
hands  of  the  Freedmen' s  Bureau — the  officers  of  which 
alone  will  decide  in  these  matters."9  It  has  already  been 
mentioned  that  the  Bureau  always  declined  to  fix  a  wage, 
but  strove  to  secure  for  the  contracting  negro  such  wages 
as  "supply  and  demand  would  insure." 

In  one  county  at  least  a  meeting  of  farmers,  besides 
fixing  the  wage  at  $5.00  per  month,  resolved  that  no  land 
should  be  rented  to  negroes.0  These  meetings  and  resolu 
tions  of  the  planters  were  regarded  by  many  friends  of  the 
negroes  as  efforts  to  keep  the  colored  people  a  landless  and 
moneyless  class  whose  condition  was,  in  reality,  worse  than 
the  old  form  of  chattel  slavery  from  which  they  had  just 
emerged,  while  it  secured  to  the  whites  the  benefits  of 
slavery  without  its  inconveniences.  It  is  doubtless  true 
that  a  considerable  number  of  people  had  consciously  or 

8Col.  O.  Brown's  report  for  1865,  printed  in  Lynchburg  Virginian, 
Jan.  2, 1866 

^District  Commander's  General  Order  printed  in  Lynchburg  Virgin 
ian,  July  27,  1865. 

°Such  was  the  case  in  Amherst  County.  Richmond  Times,  June  15, 
1865;  Col.  Brown's  report,  Lynchburg  Virginian,  Jan.  2,  1866. 


36  Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6? 

unconsciously  such  an  object  in  view.  Many  of  the  people 
felt  that  the  negro  was  hopelessly  servile  by  nature;  that 
all  efforts  to  elevate  him  must  prove  futile.  Entertaining 
such  opinions,  they  were  ready  to  assent  to  a  system  of 
wages  that  would  keep  him  in  the  place  in  society  to 
which  he  was,  in  their  opinion,  suited.  Yet  almost  all 
people  frankly  and  fully  accepted  the  unconditional 
abolition  of  slavery  and  wished  to  devise  some  system  of 
labor  and  contract  that  would  secure  the  rights  of  both 
whites  and  blacks.  Some  of  the  newspapers  condemned 
the  efforts  of  the  planters  to  fix  wages  at  $5.00  per  month, 
declaring  that  such  wages  were  not  sufficient  to  support 
the  laborers.1 

Notwithstanding  the  idleness  and  vagrancy  of  the 
negroes  during  the  years  1865  and  1866  it  was  hoped  by 
many  that  they  would  settle  down  to  something  like  their 
old  industry  when  the  novelty  of  their  condition  wore  off 
and  they  found  themselves  face  to  face  with  the  stern  reali 
ties  a  free  man  must  meet  and  conquer,  or  perish.  How  to 
put  the  negroes  to  work  in  this  transitional  period  and 
thus  prevent  a  great  scarcity  of  food,  if  not  a  famine,  was 
the  question  that  had  to  be  solved. 

Many  things  disinclined  the  negroes  earnestly  to  go  to 
work  on  the  farms  at  their  old  occupations.  In  the  minds 
of  most  of  them  freedom  and  idleness  were  synonymous. 
Labor  was  a  badge  of  servitude.  If  they  must  work,  they 
did  not  wish  to  resume  their  old  forms  of  agricultural 
labor;  they  preferred  light  and  transient  jobs  about  the 
towns,  and  in  this  way  eked  out  a  wretched  support.2 

The  army  officers  stationed  in  Virginia  during  this 
period  uniformly  strove  to  impress  the  colored  people  with 
the  true  nature  of  freedom,  and  informed  them  that  it 

iLynchburg  Virginian,  Dec.  30,  1865,  June  12,  1865 ;  Richmond  Times, 
Aug.  3,  May  19,  1868. 

,   2For  idleness  of  negroes  and  their  aversioi}  to  farm  labor,  see  news 
papers  of  1865-66. 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-67  37 

would  be  necessary  for  them  to  work  as  hard,  if  not  harder, 
than  when  they  were  slaves.  Repeatedly  these  officers 
issued  orders  urging  them  to  find  work  where  they  were 
needed  and  not  to  hope  vain  things  from  freedom.  They 
were  urged  to  go  to  work  on  the  "abandoned"  lands  then 
in  the  hands  of  the  officers  of  the  Federal  Government.8 
On  the  peninsula  between  Fortress  Monroe  and  Williams- 
burg,  it  is  said,  sixteen  thousand  negroes  were  occupying 
lands  that  the  United  States  Government  had  seized.4  At 
various  points  throughout  the  State  county  farms  were 
established  for  them  where  they  were  furnished  food  until 
they  could  raise  a  crop.  Some  of  the  army  officers  sug 
gested  that  the  army  mules  should  be  loaned  or  given  to 
the  negroes  to  enable  them  to  go  to  work  and  support 
themselves. 

These  attempts  in  1865  and  1866  to  find  homes  and 
employment  on  the  "confiscated' '  land  were  frustrated  by 
the  gradual  restoration  of  these  lands  to  their  former  own 
ers.  While  they  were  in  possession  of  these  lands  the 
freedmen  were  not  very  successful.  The  uncertainty  of 
their  tenure  conduced  to  the  failure  of  these  settlements. 
The  officers  of  the  government  divided  some  of  these  con 
fiscated  lands,  of  which  the  titles  had  been  perfected  by 
judical  process,  into  small  lots  of  ten  acres  or  less  and  sold 
them  to  freedmen  on  easy  terms.  But  all  these  efforts  to 

3See  the  following  references  in  regard  to  the  plans  of  the  army  offi 
cers  to  put  the  negroes  to  work  and  to  settle  them  on  the  abandoned 
lands:  Gen.  Howard's  report,  p.  644,  Messages  and  Documents  of  the  U. 
8.  Government,  1866-67;  Gen.  Halleck  thought  the  100,000  negroes  under 
the  direction  of  the  Federal  Government  in  Virginia  should  be  given  the 
use  of  condemned  animals  to  raise  crops,  p.  1133,  serial  97,  Official  Records 
of  War  of  Rebellion;  Gen.  McKibbin's  report,  p.  1159,  serial  97,  Official 
Records  of  War  of  Rebellion;  Gen.  HartsufTs  Order,  pp.  932-933,  1185, 
Official  Records  of  War  of  Rebellion,  serial  97;  Messages  and  Documents 
of  U.  S.  Government,  1868-69,  pp.  508-509;  Messages  and  Documents  of  U. 
S.  Government,  1866-67,  p.  668;  Gen.  Halleck,  1296,  1005,  serial  97,  Official 
Records  of  War  of  Rebellion ;  Charlottesville  Chronicle,  Feb.  28,  1867. 

*P.  658,  Globe,  1865-66.    The  number  was  probably  not  so  great. 


38  Negroes  and  Their  Ireatmen    n  Virginia,  1865-6? 

secure  homes  for  the  negroes  reached  only  a  very  small 
number  of  the  hundreds  of  thousands  of  restless  and  unem 
ployed  colored  people  of  the  State. 

There  was  a  more  or  less  well  denned  hope  in  the 
bosom  of  all  the  negroes  that  there  were  other  and  better 
things  to  come  to  them.  About  Christmas  each  year  the 
report  was  spread  abroad  amongst  the  credulous  colored 
people  that  they  were  soon  to  be  given  the  farms  of  their 
former  masters.5  This  expectation  was  strong  during  the 
autumn  and  early  winter  of  1865.  Very  naturally  these 
expectant  landlords  did  not  wish  to  enter  into  any  perma 
nent  contract  as  laborers. 

The  great  body  of  the  negroes  in  Virginia  was  engaged 
in  the  cultivation  of  tobacco.  This  crop  requires  regular 
and  careful  attention  from  the  time  it  is  planted  until  it  is 
ready  for  the  warehouse,  a  period  of  from  ten  to  twelve 

sp.  79,  App.  Globe,  1865-66. 

"Reports  having  been  received  at  these  headquarters  that  the  f reed- 
men  in  some  parts  of  the  State  refuse  to  enter  into  just  and  reasonable 
contracts  for  labor,  on  account  of  the  belief  that  the  United  States  gov 
ernment  will  distribute  lands  among  them,  superintendents  and  agents 
of  this  bureau  will  take  the  earliest  opportunity  to  explain  to  the  freed- 
men  that  no  lands  will  be  given  them  by  the  government ;  that  the  govern 
ment  has  but  a  very  small  quantity  of  land  in  the  State — only  enough 
to  provide  homes  for  a  few  families,  and  that  this  can  only  be  secured  by 
purchase  or  lease.  They  will  also  explain  to  them  the  advantages  of  at 
once  entering  into  contracts  for  labor  for  the  coming  year,  and  that  the 
system  of  contracts  is  in  no  way  connected  with  slavery,  but  is  the  sys 
tem  adopted  by  free  laborers  everywhere.  It  is  believed  that  the  renting 
of  small  tracts  of  land  by  the  farmer  to  his  laborers  would  be  mutually 
beneficial.  The  laborer's  interest  in  his  crops  and  improvements  would 
attach  him  to  the  plantation,  counteract  any  temptation  to  break  his 
contract,  and  by  f uruishing  employment  for  the  more  dependent  mem 
bers  of  his  family,  increase  their  contentment  and  their  comforts. 

"The  plan  of  renting  lands  on  shares  to  the  freedmen  has  been  suc 
cessfully  tried  in  some  parts  of  the  State,  and  is  believed  to  be  worthy  of 
a  more  extended  trial.  Superintendents  will  counsel  with  and  assist 
both  parties  in  making  either  of  the  above  arrangements."  Instructions 
to  agents  in  Virginia,  issued  Sept.  19,  1865,  by  Col.  O.  Brown,  Assistant 
Commissioner  of  Freedmen's  Bureau,  printed  in  Documents  Relating  to 
Reconstruction,  edited  by  W.  L.  Fleming,  University  West  Virginia. 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-67  39 

months.  Through  spring,  summer,  and  autumn  it  must 
have  daily  care.  Probably  no  other  great  agricultural 
product  in  the  United  States  requires  such  assiduous  care 
for  so  long  a  period.  No  planter  therefore  could  venture 
to  plant  a  tobacco  crop  unless  there  was  a  strong  probabili 
ty  that  his  laborers  would  remain  with  him  through  the 
year.  The  labor  supply  was  very  unsatisfactory  during  the 
season  of  1865,  and  promised  to  be  so  for  1866,  owing  to 
the  disinclination  of  the  negroes  to  form  long  contracts  or 
to  respect  them  when  formed.  The  issue  of  rations  by  the 
Freedmen's  Bureau  to  the  negroes  made  it  possible  for 
many  of  them  to  live  in  idleness  and  was  a  standing  invita 
tion  to  them  to  flock  to  various  agencies  and  to  find  sup 
port  without  work,  while  waiting  for  the  good  the  future 
was  to  bring. 

With  these  difficulties  confronting  them  the  people  set 
to  work  to  develop  a  contract  system  of  labor  that  would 
be  fair  to  all.  The  attempt  on  the  part  of  certain  counties 
to  fix  a  general  rate  of  wages  was  a  failure  both  from  its 
inherent  weakness  and  from  the  opposition  of  the  Federal 
authorities.  During  the  summer  of  1865  various  plans 
were  proposed  and  to  some  extent  put  into  operation. 
One  of  these  plans  was  to  furnish  the  negroes  cabins,  some 
land  for  a  garden  and  for  a  small  crop,  with  the  under 
standing  that  the  negroes  were  to  work  at  a  stipulated 
wage  for  the  owner  of  the  land  when  their  services  were 
needed.  This  system  proved  fairly  satifactory  to  both  the 
whites  and  the  blacks.  There  continued,  however,  to  be 
considerable  complaint  on  the  part  of  the  whites  that  the 
labor  was  not  reliable  and  that  the  negroes  did  not  respect 
the  obligation  of  their  contracts.6 

The  number  of  negroes  cultivating  rented  farms  on 
their  own  account  was  not  large  during  the  years  1865-67. 

epor  form  of  contract  with  freedmen,  see  Whig,  Dec.  25,  1865.  For 
violation  of  contract,  Whig,  Nov.  3,  1866.  Complaints  of  violated  con 
tracts  is  common  in  the  newspapers  of  that  time. 


I 

40  Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-67 

For  this  there  were  several  causes.  The  chief  of  these  was 
that  the  negroes  had  not  sufficient  capital  to  furnish  them 
selves  with  food  while  making  the  crop,  even  if  the  land 
owner  furnished  the  land,  the  tools  and  the  work  stock. 
In  most  cases  it  was  necessary  for  the  landlord  not  only  to 
furnish  land,  stock  and  tools  but  also  to  advance  a  suffi 
cient  sum  in  cash  or  credit  to  buy  food  for  the  negro  and 
his  family  while  making  the  crop.  This  involved  a  consid 
erable  outlay  of  money  as  well  as  considerable  risk  as  the 
negroes  did  not  prove  highly  successful  farmers  and  were 
usually  dissatisfied  with  the  settlement  of  the  account  at 
the  end  of  the  year.  Another  explanation  of  the  compara 
tively  small  number  of  renters  is  that  the  whites  felt  that 
negro  labor  without  the  direction  and  guidance  of  white 
men  would  be  a  failure.7  It  has  already  been  mentioned 
that  in  one  county  of  the  State  it  was  resolved  not  to  rent 
land  to  negroes.8  Such  a  feeling,  however,  was  never  very 
general,  and  where  it  did  exist  it  arose  chiefly  from  the 
considerations  just  mentioned  and  not  from  any  desire  to 
oppress  the  negroes.  There  was  no  effort  by  law  or  general 
public  opinion  to  prevent  the  freedmen  from  renting  or 
owning  land,  though  some  few  people  thought  it  best  not  to 
rent  them  land. 

Free  negroes  were  allowed  to  own  land  before  the  war. 
At  the  close  of  the  war,  in  1865,  a  considerable  number  of 
negroes  in  Virginia  had  bought  real  estate.9  They  were 
very  anxious  to  own  land,  since  they  thought  that  owner 
ship  of  the  soil  was  an  indisputable  mark  of  freedom.  The 
number  buying  land  in  the  three  years  immediately  follow- 

7For  reasons  why  farmers  prefer  to  hire  negroes  rather  than  rent 
them  land,  see  Bruce,  Plantation  Negro  as  a  Freeman,  p.  212  et  seq. 

8Amherst  County  Resolutions,  Richmond  Times,  June  15,  1865.  The 
Enquirer  (editorial)  suggests  that  the  freedmen  might  become  fixtures 
on  the  plantations.  This  is  suggested  as  a  solution  of  the  vexed  labor 
question. 

9Col.  O.  Brown's  Report,  Lynchburg  Virginian,  Jan.  2,  1866. 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-67  41 

ing  the  war  was  many  times  larger  than  for  any  three 
years  since  1868.  It  does  not  appear  that  any  negro  ex 
perienced  any  difficulty  in  buying  real  estate  either  in  the 
country  or  in  the  city  if  he  had  sufficient  means  to  do  so. 

Neither  the  whites  nor  the  negroes  found  it  entirely 
satisfactory  for  the  negroes  to  attempt  to  rent  land  and 
faim  on  their  own  account.  By  the  close  of  1866  the  pre 
vailing  opinion  amongst  the  farmers  of  the  State  was  in 
clined  to  favor  the  wage  system  instead  of  renting  the  land 
to  the  freedmeu.  Bepresentative  planters  declared  the 
results  of  renting  was  anything  but  satisfactory.  "The 
stock  loaned  was  greatly  depreciated  in  value  and  not 
enough  was  made  to  remunerate  the  land  owner  for  ad 
vances.  The  negroes  as  tenants  are  worthless."0 

A  few  planters  took  a  little  more  hopeful  view  of  their 
colored  tenants.  By  this  time  the  negroes  as  a  race  had 
demonstrated  their  incapacity  for  independent  enterprise 
and  the  direction  of  their  own  labor;  yet  many  of  them  who 
were  especially  endowed  by  nature  or  had  enjoyed  superior 
advantages  in  slavery  were  successful  and  respected  men  of 
business. 

A  wage  system  was  being  developed  during  the  years 
1865  and  1866.  It  is  difficult  to  determine  what  was  the 
average  rate  of  wages  actually  paid  freedmen  in  the  sum 
mer  and  fall  of  1865.  The  conditions  prevailing  in  differ 
ent  counties  were  unlike.  In  some  counties  the  supply  of 
labor  was  so  abundant  and  the  demand  for  it  so  small  that 
the  negroes  could  be  hired  for  their  board  and  quarters. 
Such  was  the  case  in  Orange  county.  In  other  counties 
where  the  demand  was  active  and  the  number  of  laborers 
compai  atively  small,  negro  men  were  eagerly  paid  twelve 
dollars  per  month,  the  supply  not  being  equal  to  the 
demand  at  that  price.  This  was  the  case  in  the  Valley 

°See  letter  of  Mayo  Cabell  inLynchburg  Virginian,  Jan.  16,  1867;  Gen, 
Howard's  Report,  p.  665,  Messages  and  Documents  of  the  U.  8.  Govern 
ment,  1867-68. 


42  Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6? 

counties.  In  addition  to  this  money  payment  they  received 
fourteen  pounds  of  bacon,  "bone  not  counted, "  and  one 
bushel  of  meal  per  month,  which  was  supposed  to  be  suffi 
cient  to  feed  a  laboring  man.  In  many  cases  the  wages 
were  much  lower  than  ten  dollars  per  month.  The  wages 
paid  for  unskilled  agricultural  labor  did  not  often  exceed 
this  amount.  The  officers  of  the  Freedmen's  Bureau  seem 
to  have  regarded  these  wages  as  high  as  the  agricultural 
condition  justified. 

The  wage  paid  in  1866  was  higher  than  that  of  1865. 
The  demand  for  labor  was  greater,  and  the  number  of 
laborers  was  apparently  smaller  than  in  the  year  before. 
The  agents  of  the  Freedmen's  Bureau  collected  statistics  in 
1866  that  showed  a  marked  diminution  of  the  number  of 
negroes  in  Virginia.  One  of  the  Eichmond  papers  deplored 
the  fact  that  better  wages  were  drawing  off  the  colored 
laborers  to  the  Southern  states  or  to  the  North  while  few 
whites  were  coming  in  to  take  their  places.1  Probably  the 
emigration  of  the  negroes  in  1866  was  not  nearly  so  large 
as  it  was  estimated,  but  the  alarm  caused  by  a  possible 
scarcity  of  laborers  and  an  increased  labor  demand  arising 
from  reviving  industry  caused  an  advance  in  wages. 

Gen.  Howard  declared  that  the  low  wages  prevailing 
in  Virginia  were  the  effect  of  supply  and  demand;  yet  he 
thinks  that  the  whites  were  in  many  instances  unfair  to 
the  negroes.2  The  Freedmen's  Bureau  officers  and  the 
military  officers  repeatedly  declared  that  business  was  pros 
trated,  that  capital  had  vanished,  and  that  labor  could  be 
employed  only  at  very  low  wages.  The  wage  paid  in  1866 
was  not  much,  if  any,  less  than  the  wage  of  1867.  For  the 
year  1867  the  rep  >rt  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture 
gives  a  table  showing  the  wages  in  Virginia  in  1860  and  in 
1867.  The  average  annual  wage  for  a  negro  man  in  1860 

IP.  765,  American  Annual  Cyclopaedia,  1866. 

2P.  671,  Messages  and  Documents  of  the  U.  S.  Government,  1866-67 ;  p. 
79,  App.  Globe,  1865-66. 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6?  43 

was  $105;  in  1867,  $102;  for  a  woman  in  1860,  $46;  in  1867, 
$43;  for  a  youth  in  1860,  $39;  in  1867,  $46.  In  the  pre 
ceding  table  of  wages  per  annum,  rations  and  clothing  are 
included  with  the  money  of  1860,  rations  without  clothing 
in  1867.  The  clothing  comprised  tw©  suits  of  summer 
clothes,  two  pairs  of  shoes  or  one  pair  of  boots,  and  some 
times  a  pair  of  blankets.3 

A  comparison  of  the  wages  of  1860  with  those  of  1867 
shows  that  the  labor  of  a  free  negro  in  1867  was  not  as  well 
paid  as  was  the  labor  of  a  slave  in  1860.  The  service  of  a 
slave  was  undoubtedly  worth  more  than  that  of  an  excited 
and  restless  freedman,  who  was,  according  to  all  testimony, 
much  less  efficient  as  a  freedman  than  as  a  slave.  It  is 
proper  to  mention  that  wages  in  Virginia  were  lower  than 
in  any  other  of  the  seceding  states  except  South  Carolina. 
The  feverish  excitement  in  cotton  planting  in  1866  was 
responsible  for  the  much  higher  rate  of  wages  prevailing  in 
most  of  the  cotton  states. 

The  wages  paid  freedmen  in  Virginia  during  this 
period  were  severely  criticized  by  the  friends  of  the  negroes 
outside  of  the  State.  The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Mr. 
Fessenden,  had,  July  29,  1864,  fixed  a  scale  of  wages  as 
follows:  From  eighteen  to  forty  years  of  age,  males,  $25.00 
per  month;  females,  $18.00.  From  fourteen  to  eighteen 
and  from  forty  to  fifty-five,  males,  $20.00;  females,  $14.00. 
Over  fifty-five  and  from  twelve  to  fourteen,  males,  $15.00 
per  month;  females,  $10.00.  The  wages  were  not  for 
skilled  labor  alone,  but  for  all  able-bodied  colored  persons.4 

The  proposal  of  such  a  scale  of  wages  disinclined  the 
negroes  to  take  work  at  the  wages  current  in  the  State.  A 
feeling  grew  amongst  them  that  they  were  entitled  to  three 
or  four  times  as  much  as  they  were  getting  for  their  work. 
In  the  "Hunnicutt  Convention,"  assembled  at  Richmond  in 

3P.  416,  Annual  Report  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture,  1867. 
«P.  388,  American  Annual  Cyclopaedia,  1864, 


44  Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6? 

April,  1867,  there  were  about  two  hundred  and  fifty  dele 
gates,  of  whom  about  fifty  were  whites.  In  this  conven 
tion  there  was  much  talk  of  "confiscation"  and  it  was  de 
clared  that  wages  were  entirely  too  low.  The  speeches  in 
this  convention  show  that  it  was  thought  that  about  forty 
dollars  per  month  was  the  right  figure  for  ordinary  farm 
labor.5 

The  different  attempts  to  settle  the  labor  question  had 
in  the  spring  of  1867  proved  only  partially  successful.  The 
wage  system  was  winning  its  way.  The  negroes  were  dis 
satisfied  with  the  current  rate  of  wages  and  the  terms  of 
employment.  Their  friends  outside  of  the  State  and  their 
"scalawag"  leaders  in  the  State  were  encouraging  them  to 
demand  higher  wages  than  have  ever  been  paid  to  unskilled 
farm  labor,  white  or  black,  in  the  history  of  Virginia. 


CHAPTER  VI. 
VAGBANCY  AND  VAGRANCY  LAWS. 

The  efforts  to  induce  the  negroes  to  take  up  the  forms 
of  labor  for  which  there  was  a  demand  and  for  which  they 
had  been  trained  were  not  entirely  successful.  They 
either  declined  to  enter  into  contracts  for  labor  or  ignored 
them  when  formed.  Many  pilfered  from  the  kitchens  of 
the  white  employers  of  their  friends  or  lived  on  the  rations 
drawn  from  the  Federal  Government.  As  late  as  Septem 
ber,  1865,  the  Bureau  issued  to  freedmen  in  Virginia  in 
one  month  275,887  rations.  In  December,  1865,  12,058 
negroes  were  receiving  daily  rations;  about  15,000  were 

SGharlottesville  Chronicle,  April  20,  1867. 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-67  45 

daily  fed  through  the  winter.6  They  sometimes  adopted 
bolder  tactics,  gathered  into  crowds  in  remote  parts  of  the 
counties,  killed  the  hogs,  sheep  and  cattle  of  the  white 
farmers  and  plundered  their  orchards  and  fields.  In  Meck 
lenburg  County,  in  August,  1865,  "the  negroes  congregated 
at  one  or  two  points,  killed  the  poultry,  sheep  and  hogs 
and  devastated  the  cornfields  and  melon  patches  of  the 
farmers.7'7  The  most  common  theme  of  the  editorials  of 
the  State  press  during  the  summer  and  fall  of  1865  was  the 
idleness  and  vagrancy  of  the  freed  men. 

How  to  deal  with  the  vagrancy  and  petty  thieving  of 
the  negroes  was  one  of  the  most  serious  questions  of  that 
time.  The  Richmond  Times,  June  21,  1865,  says:  "If 
severe  penal  legislation  shall  become  necessary  to  prevent 
the  free  negro  from  becoming  a  vagabond  and  idle  thief, 
the  Legislature  will  provide  the  remedy."  Many  news 
paper  correspondents  were  of  the  opinion  that  some  system 
of  "force"  was  necessary  to  break  up  vagrancy  amongst 
the  freedmen.  The  Lynchburg  Virginian,  June  12,  1865, 
said:  "Large  numbers  have  deserted  the  plantations  and 
seek  to  congregate  in  the  cities,  so  that  the  most  stringent 
police  regulations  may  be  necessary  to  keep  them  from 
overburdening  the  towns  and  depleting  the  agricultural 
regions  of  labor.  The  military  authorities  seem  to  be  alive 
to  this  fact  and  are  taking  measures  to  correct  the  evil. 
But  the  civil  authorities  also  should  be  fully  empowered  to 
protect  the  community  from  this  new  imposition.  The 
magistrates  and  municipal  officers  everywhere  should  be 
permitted  to  hold  a  rod  in  terrorem  over  these  wandering, 
idle  creatures.  Nothing  short  of  the  most  efficient  police 
system  will  prevent  strolling,  vagrancy,  theft,  and  the 
utter  destruction  of  or  serious  injury  to  our  industrial  sys- 

«P.  79.  App.  Globe,  1865-66.  Messages  and  Documents  of  the  U.  8. 
Government,  1866-67,  p  651,  672.  P.  378,  American  Annual  Cyclopaedia, 
1865. 

TRichmond  Times,  Aug.  16,  1865. 


46  Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6? 

tern."  Nov.  4,  1865,  the  same  paper  said:  "Therefore  to 
prevent  the  influx  of  this  population  to  our  towns  and  cities 
the  Legislature  will  be  obliged  to  pass  laws  of  sweeping 
character.  A  system  of  registration  must  be  adopted  and 
the  vagrant  laws  must  be  revived  and  rigidly  enforced. 
Apprenticeship,  to  prevent  young  negroes  from  growing  up 
in  idleness  and  vagrancy,  should  be  a  settled  policy,  to  be 
regulated  upon  some  system  of  justice  and  fair  dealing 
between  both  parties.  The  penalty  of  vagrancy  should  be 
virtual  servitude  and  apprenticeship  to  labor  of  some  kind 
lor  a  limited  period,  for  only  by  some  such  means  as  these 
will  we  be  able  to  make  this  character  of  labor  available,"8 

In  September,  1865,  the  Lynchburg  Virginian,  in  an 
editorial,  says:  "Already  measures  are  being  taken  to 
compel  the  newly  freed  man  to  labor,  and  we  hope,  little 
confidence  as  we  have  in  the  inclination  of  the  negro  to 
labor  without  the  application  of  some  kind  of  force,  that  a 
system  will  be  adopted  to  supply  the  lack  of  labor  that  is 
now  experienced. " 

In  September,  1865,  the  agent  of  the  American  Bible 
Society,  in  compliance  with  Governor  Pierpont's  request, 
after  visiting  Petersburg,  Farmville,  Lynchburg,  Bedford 
City  and  the  country  surrounding  these  cities,  says,  in  re 
gard  to  the  negro:  "The  number  of  able-bodied  men  is 
small;  in  respect  to  labor  a  goodly  number  of  the  able- 
bodied  are  industrious  and  doing  well  for  themselves  and 
families;  numbers  must  perish  unless  aided  by  charity — 
some  estimates  make  one-half,  some  one-third,  some  a  very 
few  as  dependent  on  charity;  some  negroes  everywhere 
feel  that  they  have  no  responsibility  in  caring  for  their 
wives  or  children  or  their  own  personal  wants  and  live  to 
some  extent  on  what  does  not  belong  to  them."9 

»Daily  Dispatch,  Jan.  4,  1865,  had  said  that  the  condition  of  the  free 
negro  will  be  more  pitiable  than  that  of  the  slave  and  that  a  new  slavery 
will  arise. 

''These  quotations  are  taken  from  the  brief  informal  report  left  in.  the 
Governor's  office.  See  Lynchburg  Virginian,  Sept.  9,  1865. 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-67  47 

In  denial  of  all  these  charges  Senator  Sumner  read  in 
the  United  States  Senate  the  following  letter  "from  a  gov 
ernment  officer  of  Virginia:"  "With  regard  to  the  freed  - 
men  there  is  every  disposition  on  their  part  to  make  them 
odious.  They  constantly  talk  of  insurrection,  insubordina 
tion,  thieving,  idleness  and  every  species  of  crime  and  vice, 
all  of  which  I  assure  is  entirely  false,  for  all  cases  of  thiev 
ing  certainly,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  are  done  by  whites.'70 

It  is  surprising  to  read  that  "a  government  officer  of 
Virginia"  ever  reported  that  "all  cases  of  thieving  are 
done  by  whites;"  yet  so  excited  and  credulous  were  the 
partisans  of  the  negro  that  such  sweeping  statements  were 
solemnly  read  in  the  United  States  Senate  by  such  senators 
as  Sumner,  Wilson,  and  others  of  almost  equal  intelligence. 

On  the  other  hand  the  wildest  reports  of  the  licentious 
ness,  vagabondage  and  starvation  of  the  freedmen  were 
believed.  Senator  Doolittle,  in  a  speech  at  New  Haven, 
Connecticut,  in  1865,  declared  that  at  least  one  million 
negroes  had  perished  from  1860  to  1865;  he  did  not  doubt 
that  the  census  for  1870  would  show  that  at  least  two-fifths 
of  the  negroes  had  perished  from  disease,  starvation  and 
vice.1  A  writer  in  Black  wood's  Magazine  declared  in 
1866  that  almost  one-half  of  the  negroes  in  the  United 
States  had  perished  in  the  last  six  years.2  In  some  places 
in  the  South  the  mortality  was  thirty  per  cent,  of  the  sick.8 
Some  thought  the  negroes  as  freemen  would  disappear  as 
the  Indians  and  buffaloes  were  disappearing.  Many  were 
alarmed  at  the  drunkenness  prevailing  amongst  all  classes 
and  sexes  of  the  colored  people.4 

°P.  93,  Globe,  1865-66. 

*P.  810,  American  Annual  Cyclopaedia,  1865. 
2Blackwood's  Magazine,  May,  1866,  p.  532. 
SP.  376,  American  Annual  Cyclopaedia,  1865. 

^Richmond  Times,  July  3,  1865. 

Mr.  Dawson's  speech,  Congressional  Globe,  1865-1866,  p.  542. 

For  vagrancy  and  mortality  of  the  negroes,  see  Enquirer,  Nov.  15, 
1865,  March  22,  Sept.  18,  1866,  April  18,  1867;  Whig,  Dec.  1,  1865,  Oct.  2, 
Nov.  5,  1866;  Republic,  Aug.  10,  1865. 


48  Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6? 

It  is  now  well  known  that  the  negro  did  not  suffer  so 
severely  from  idleness,  dissipation  and  disease  as  was  be 
lieved  to  be  the  case  at  that  time;  nevertheless  he  suffered 
much. 

The  army  officers  were  alarmed  at  the  prevalence  of 
vagrancy  during  the  year  1865.  In  an  order  of  June  1, 
1865,  General  Gregg,  stationed  at  Lynchburg,  says:  "No 
freedman  can  be  allowed  to  live  in  idleness  when  he  can 
obtain  any  description  of  work.  Should  he  refuse  to  work 
he  will  be  treated  as  a  vagabond."  June  2,  1865,  he  issued 
the  following  order:  "Able-bodied  men  will  be  prevented, 
as  far  as  it  is  possible  to  do  so,  from  deserting  the  women, 
children  and  aged  persons;  and  where  there  is  no  good 
cause  shown  why  they  left,  they  will  be  sent  back."  Gen. 
Wright,  in  an  order  issued  at  Danville,  speaks  of  the  dan 
ger  "from  vagrant  negroes."  Gen.  Duval,  at  Staunton, 
June  12,  1865,  gave  notice  "that  all  negroes  now  roaming 
the  country  will  be  made  at  once  to  break  up  their  idle 
pursuits  and  seek  employment." 

In  his  report  for  1865  Gen.  O.  O.  Howard,  Commis 
sioner  of  the  Freedman' s  Bureau,  says  there  was  much 
unnecessary  idleness  amongst  the  negroes  in  Virginia.  He 
thinks  this  vagabondage  arises  in  part  from  the  meagre 
wages  paid  the  freedmen.  Col.  O.  Brown,  Assistant  Com 
missioner  of  the  Freedmen' s  Bureau  for  Virginia,  in  an 
order  of  November  10.  1865,  says  in  regard  to  the  vagran 
cy  of  the  negro:  "Where  employment  is  offered  on  terms 
that  will  provide  for  the  comfortable  subsistence  of  the 
laborers,  removing  them  from  the  vices  of  idleness  and  from 
dependence  on  charity,  they  should  be  treated  as  vagrants 
if  they  do  not  accept  it,  and  the  rules  of  the  Bureau  appli 
cable  to  such  cases  should  be  rigidly  enforced  ;  while  the 
freedmen  must  and  will  be  protected  in  their  rights,  they 
must  be  required  to  meet  these  first  and  most  essential  con 
ditions  of  a  state  of  freedom,  a  visible  means  of  support 
and  fidelity  to  contract."  In  his  report  of  Jan.  2,  1866, 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6?  49 

Col.  Brown  said:  "In  the  neighborhood  of  Norfolk,  For 
tress  Monroe  and  Yorktown  about  seventy  thousand  negroes 
had  been  collected  during  the  war.'7  *  *  *  *  "In  other 
districts  thousands  of  freedmen  were  roaming  about,  with 
out  settled  employment  and  without  homes.  In  localities 
least  disturbed  by  the  pressure  or  conflict  of  armies  and 
where  the  average  amount  of  land  was  under  cultivation 
the  crops  were  suffering  from  want  of  proper  attention. "5 
Col.  Brown  thought  that  the  vagrancy  prevailing  during 
the  year  1865  was  owing  to  an  excessive  supply  of  laborers 
and  inability  of  the  whites  to  employ  and  co-operate  with 
free  labor,  since  they  had  been  accustomed  to  deal  only 
with  slaves. 

In  August,  18ti5,  the  Freedman's  Journal,  of  Alex 
andria,  declared  there  would  be  intense  suffering  amongst 
the  negroes  in  large  numbers  who  were  not  laying  up  any 
thing  for  the  coming  winter,  but  were  either  idle  and 
unemployed,  or  dissipating  their  earnings  for  drink  or 
trifles.6 

The  actual  vagrancy  was  not  as  great  as  it  appeared 
to  many  people  at  that  time.  Before  the  war  nearly  all 
the  negroes  in  Virginia  had  been  slaves  and  had  conse 
quently  been  kept  closely  employed  on  their  owners'  plan 
tations.  People  were  unaccustomed  to  the  sight  of  loung 
ing,  idle  negroes,  and  were  therefore  the  more  alarmed  at 
the  idleness  and  vagrancy  of  the  late  slaves.  It  is  the 
opinion  of  some  citizens  who  lived  through  that  period 
that  the  negroes  were  not  less  industrious  than  at  present, 
yet  the  people  were  alarmed  at  the  unwonted  idleness  of 
the  freedmen  and  demanded  remedial  legislation  of  the 
General  Assembly. 

The   Legislature  met  early  in  December,  1865,   and 

Lynchburg  Virginian,  Jan.  2,  1866. 
BLynchburg  Virginian,  August  25,  1866. 

4 


50  Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-67 

passed,  on  January  15,  1866,  the  following  preamble  and 
act:7 

"  Whereas  it  is  represented  to  the  General  Assembly, 
That  there  hath  lately  been  a  great  increase  of  idle  and 
disorderly  persons  in  some  parts  of  this  Commonwealth, 
and,  unless  some  stringent  laws  are  passed  to  restrain  and 
prevent  such  vagrancy  and  idleness,  the  State  will  be  over 
run  with  dissolute  and  abandoned  characters  to  the  great 
detriment  of  the  public  weal:  For  remedy  whereof, 

"  1.  Be  it  enacted  by  the  General  Assembly,  That  the 
overseers  of  the  poor,  or  other  officers  having  charge  of  the 
poor,  or  the  special  county  police,  or  the  police  of  any 
corporation,  or  any  one  or  more  of  such  persons,  shall  be 
and  are  hereby  empowered  and  required  upon  discovering 
any  vagrant  or  vagrants  within  their  respective  counties 
or  corporations,  to  make  information  thereof  to  any  justice 
of  the  peace  of  their  county  or  corporation,  and  to  require 
a  warrant  for  apprehending  such  vagrant  or  vagrants,  to 
be  brought  before  him  or  some  other  justice;  and  if,  upon 
due  examination,  it  shall  appear  that  the  person  or  persons 
are  within  the  true  description  of  a  vagrant,  as  hereinafter 
mentioned,  such  justice  shall,  by  warrant  under  his  hand, 
order  such  vagrant  or  vagrants  to  be  employed  in  labor  for 
any  term  not  exceeding  three  months,  and  by  any  constable 
of  such  county  or  corporation,  be  hired  out  for  the  best 
wages  that  can  be  procured;  to  be  applied,  except  as  here 
after  provided,  for  the  use  of  the  vagrant  or  his  family,  as 
ordered  by  the  justice.  And  if  any  such  vagrant  or 
vagrants  shall,  during  such  time  of  service,  without  suf 
ficient  cause,  run  away  from  the  person  so  employing  him 
or  them,  he  or  they  shall  be  apprehended,  on  the  warrant 
of  a  justice,  and  returned  to  the  custody  of  such  hirer,  who 
shall  have,  free  of  any  further  hire,  the  services  of  said 
vagrant  for  one  month  in  addition  to  the  original  term  of 
hiring;  and  said  employer  shall  then  have  the  power,  if 

7Acts  1865-66,  pp.  91-93. 


Negroes  and  Their  Ireatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6?  51 

authorized  by  the  justice,  to  work  said  vagrant,  confined 
with  ball  and  chain;  or  should  said  hirer  decline  to  receive 
again  said  vagrant,  then  said  vagrant  shall  be  taken  by 
the  officer  upon  the  order  of  a  justice,  to  the  poor  or  work 
house,  if  there  be  any  in  said  county  or  corporation,  and  be 
delivered  to  the  overseer  or  superintendent,  who  shall  work 
said  vagrant  for  the  benefit  of  said  county  or  corporation; 
or,  if  authorized  by  the  justice,  to  work  him,  confined  with 
ball  and  chain,  for  the  period  for  which  he  would  have 
had  to  serve  his  late  employer,  had  he  consented  to  receive 
him  again;  or  should  there  be,  when  said  runaway  vagrant 
is  apprehended,  any  public  work  going  on  in  said  county 
or  corporation,  then  said  vagrant,  upon  the  order  of  a 
justice,  shall  be  delivered  over  by  said  officer  to  the  super 
intendent  of  such  public  work,  who  shall,  for  the  like  last 
mentioned  period,  work  said  vagrant  on  said  public  works, 
confined  with  ball  and  chain,  if  so  authorized  by  the  justice. 
But  if  there  be  no  poor  or  work  house  in  said  county  or 
corporation,  and  no  public  work  then  in  progress  therein, 
then,  in  that  event,  said  justice  may  cause  said  vagrant  to 
be  delivered  to  any  person  who  will  take  charge  of  him. 
Said  person  to  have  his  services  free  of  charge,  except 
maintenance,  for  a  like  last  mentioned  period,  and  said 
person  so  receiving  said  vagrant  is  hereby  empowered,  if 
authorized  by  the  justice,  to  work  said  vagrant  confined 
with  ball  and  chain;  or  should  no  such  person  be  found, 
then  said  vagrant  is  to  be  committed  to  the  county  jail, 
there  to  be  confined  for  the  like  period,  and  fed  on  bread  and 
water.  But  the  persons  described  as  the  fifth  class  of  vag 
rants,  in  the  second  section  of  this  act,  may  be  arrested 
without  warrant  by  the  special  county  or  corporation  police, 
and  when  so  arrested  shall  be  taken  before  a  justice,  who 
shall  proceed  to  dispose  of  them  in  the  mode  prescribed  in 
this  section,  or  may  at  once  direct  them  to  be  committed 
to  prison  for  a  period  not  exceeding  three  months,  to  be 
kept  in  close  confinement  and  fed  on  bread  and  water. 


52  Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6? 

"2.  The  following  described  persons  shall  be  liable  to 
the  penalties  imposed  by  law  upon  vagrants: 

"First — All  persons  who  shall  unlawfully  return  into 
any  county  or  corporation  whence  they  have  been  legally 
removed. 

"Second — All  persons  who,  not  having  wherewith  to 
maintain  themselves  and  their  families,  live  idly  and  with 
out  employment,  and  refuse  to  work  for  the  usual  and 
common  wages  given  to  other  laborers  in  the  like  work  in 
the  place  where  they  then  are. 

"Third — All  persons  who  shall  refuse  to  perform  the 
work  which  shall  be  allotted  to  them  by  the  overseers  of 
the  poor  as  aforesaid. 

"Fourth — All  persons  going  about  from  door  to  door, 
or  placing  themselves  ifl  streets,  highways  or  other  roads, 
to  beg  alms,  and  all  persons  wandering  abroad  and  beg 
ging,  unless  disabled  or  incapable  of  labor. 

"Fifth — All  persons  who  shall  come  from  any  place 
without  this  commonwealth  to  any  place  within  it,  and 
shall  be  found  loitering  and  residing  therein,  and  shall 
follow  no  labor,  trade,  occupation,  or  business,  and  have 
no  visible  means  of  subsistence,  and  can  give  no  reasonable 
account  of  themselves  or  their  business  in  such  place. 

"3.  All  costs  and  expenses  incurred  shall  be  paid  out 
of  the  hire  of  such  vagrant,  if  sufficient,  and  if  not  suf 
ficient,  the  deficiency  shall  be  paid  by  the  county  or 
corporation. " 

The  language  of  this  ace  applies  alike  to  all  persons, 
both  white  and  black,  but  it  was  enacted  primarily  to  sup 
press  vagrancy  among  the  negroes. 

This  statute  was  annulled  by  Maj.  Gen.  Terry,  then  in 
command  in  Virginia,  in  an  order  issued  only  nine  days 
after  its  passage.  In  this  order  Gen.  Terry  sums  up  the 
provisions  of  the  act  and  declares:  "The  ultimate  effect  of 
the  statute  will  be  to  reduce  the  freed  men  to  a  condition  of 
servitude  worse  than  that  from  which  they  have  been 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-67  53 

emancipated,  a  condition  which  will  be  slavery  in  all  but 
its  name."  In  conclusion  of  his  review  he  says  :  "It  is 
therefore  ordered  that  no  magistrate,  civil  officer,  or  other 
person  shall,  in  any  way  or  manner,  apply  or  attempt  to 
apply,  the  provisions  of  said  statute  to  any  colored  person 
in  this  department.  "8 

Carl  Schurz  had  said  in  his  report  to  President  John 
son:  "Although  the  freedman  is  no  longer  considered  the 
property  of  the  individual  master  he  is  considered  the 
slave  of  society,  and  all  independent  state  legislation  will 
share  the  tendency  to  make  him  such.'79  It  was  declared 
that  the  vagrant  act  of  January  15,  1866,  was  only  the  first 
step  toward  enslaving  all  negroes  to  the  community,  which 
it  was  alleged  had  already  practically  been  done  in  some 
of  the  Gulf  States.0 

This  statute  was  not  in  force  long  enough  to  be  tested 
in  its  practical  workings.  It  was  liable  to  grave  abuses  ; 
yet  it  cannot  be  said,  in  view  of  all  the  facts  narrated  on 
the  preceding  pages,  that  it  was  enacted  to  re-enslave  the 
negroes,  either  to  an  individual  or  to  society.  This  was 
the  only  act  touching  the  negroes  that  was  annulled  by  the 
military  authorities.  With  the  exception  of  the  Contract 
Law,  the  Vagrant  Act  was  the  only  positive  enactment 
of  the  Legislature  that  was  seriously  criticised  by  the 
negroes  or  their  friends. 

spp.  908,  1305,  Globe,  1865-66. 
9Congressional  Globe,  1865-66,  p.  1305. 

°See  the  Congressional  debates  on  the  Freedmen's  Bureau  Bill,  Civil 
Rights  Bill  and  the  Reconstruction  Acts,  Congressional  Globe,  1865-67. 
For  comparison  of  the  ''Black  Laws"  passed  by  the  Southern  Legislatures 
in  1865-66,  with  similar  laws  in  the  Northern  states,  see  Herbert,  Solid 
South.  For  full  account  of  these  laws,  see  Burgess,  Reconstruction,  and 
Garner,  Reconstruction  in  Mississippi.  For  partisan  account,  see  Blaine, 
Twenty  Years  in  Congress,  and  McCall,  Thaddeus  Stevens. 


54  Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6? 

CHAPTER  VII. 
CONTRACT  LAWS. 

During  the  year  1865  almost  all  the  contracts  between 
white  and  colored  men  for  labor  were  verbal  agreements. 
In  many  cases  they  were  indefinite  in  their  terms  and  led 
to  much  misunderstanding  between  the  employer  and  the 
employee.  The  negroes,  after  the  lapse  of  a  few  months, 
were  surprised  to  find  how  much  they  had  received  on 
their  wage  account  and  how  small  an  amount  was  due 
them.  They  therefore  became  discontented,  abandoned 
their  work  and  made  complaint  of  their  wrongs  before  the 
Federal  authorities,  alleging  that  they  were  denied  the 
wages  promised  them  or  were  wronged  in  the  payment  of 
the  same.  Since  the  contracts  were  verbal,  it  was  impos 
sible  for  the  courts  to  determine  who  was  in  the  wrong. 

To  obviate  this  source  of  dissatisfaction  and  litigation, 
the  Legislature,  February  20,  1866,  enacted:  "That  no 
contract  between  a  white  and  a  colored  person  for  the 
labor  or  service  of  the  latter  for  a  longer  period  than  two 
months  shall  be  binding  on  such  colored  person  unless  the 
contract  be  in  writing,  signed  by  such  white  person,  or  his 
agent,  and  by  such  colored  person,  and  duly  acknowledged 
before  a  justice  or  notary  public  or  clerk  of  the  county  or 
corporation  court,  or  overseer  of  the  poor,  or  two  or  more 
credible  witnesses  in  the  county  or  corporation  in  which 
the  white  person  resides  or  in  which  the  labor  or  service  is 
to  be  performed.  And  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  justice, 
notary,  clerk,  or  overseer  of  the  poor,  or  the  witnesses  to 
read  and  explain  the  contract  to  the  colored  person  before 
taking  his  acknowledgment  thereof,  and  to  state  that  this 
has  been  done  in  the  certificate  of  the  acknowledgment  of 
the  contract."00  In  this  section  of  the  statute  there  is  no 

<»Acts  1865-66,  p.  83. 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-67  65 

discrimination  against  the  freedrnan,  since  he  can  enforce 
his  contracts  whether  verbal  or  written,  while  the  white 
man  can  enforce  his  contract  with  a  negro  only  when  it  is 
written  and  properly  acknowledged. 

In  the  account  of  the  evolution  of  a  wage  system  fre 
quent  references  were  made  to  the  uncertainty  and  unre 
liability  of  the  colored  labor  of  the  State.  It  was  shown 
that  the  planting  of  a  tobacco  crop,  the  leading  staple  in  the 
section  of  the  State  occupied  chiefly  by  negroes,  was  a  great 
risk  on  account  of  the  transient  and  uncertain  character  of 
labor.  Since  the  restraints  of  slavery  had  been  removed 
from  them  the  negroes  seemed  to  have  the  idea  that  they  as 
freemen  were  bound  by  no  contract  or  promise,  if  interest 
or  fancy  invited  them  to  violate  it.  The  offer  of  a  slight  in 
crease  for  a  day  or  two  in  the  daily  wage  would  induce  the 
laborers  to  desert,  at  the  most  critical  time  of  planting  or 
harvesting,  the  planters  in  whose  service  they  had  been 
engaged  at  the  less  critical  season  of  the  year  under  contract 
to  remain  until  the  crop  was  harvested  or  the  work  finished. 
Frequently  no  inducement  in  the  form  of  better  pay  was 
necessary  to  cause  them  to  drop  their  work  and  wander 
away.  The  advent  of  a  circus  or  the  announcement  of  a 
revival  meeting  meant  a  more  or  less  protracted  holiday  for 
the  negroes,  regardless  of  their  contracts  or  the  urgency  of 
the  work  they  had  agreed  to  perform. 

The  Eichmond  Times,  in  an  editorial  of  June  10,  1865, 
says:  "The  contract,  however,  doss  not  weigh  a  feather 
with  the  negro.  He  deserts  his  employer  without  a 
moment's  warning,  and  does  not  deign  to  assign  a  reason  for 
his  conduct.  He  leaves  the  plow  in  the  unfinished  furrow, 
the  dinner  half  cooked,  the  half  washed  linen  in  the  suds, 
and  the  patient  whom  he  has  contracted  to  nurse  in  the 
midst  of  the  fierce  delirium  of  fever.  He  laughs  at  the 
obligation  of  his  contract,  and  does  not  care  a  farthing  for 
the  injury  which  his  conduct  inflicts  upon  his  employer. 
Is  there  no  remedy  for  this?  Until  laws  regulating  con- 


56  Negroes  and  Their  treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6? 

tracts  between  our  citizens  and  the  negro  are  enacted,  we 
hope  the  military  authorities  will  see  that  all  parties  are 
protected  and  forced  to  observe  their  contracts. " 

During  the  year  1865  negro  labor  remained  very  fickle. 
It  was  urged  by  county  meetings  of  the  farmers  that  the 
Legislature  should  at  an  early  date  do  something  to  regulate 
and  protect  contracts  between  white  men  and  negroes  for 
labor.  Otherwise  it  was  declared  that  no  one  could  ven 
ture  to  plant  extensively  or  to  undertake  any  great  indus 
trial  enterprise.1 

When  the  Legislature  convened  in  December,  1865,  it 
took  up  the  contract  labor  question.  We  have  seen  that  by 
the  first  section  of  the  act  of  February  20,  1866,  it  was  pro 
vided  that  no  contract  between  a  white  and  a  colored  man 
for  labor  for  two  months  or  longer  was  enforceable  against 
a  negro  unless  it  was  in  writing.  By  the  second  section  of 
this  act  penalties  were  provided  for  enticing  away  or  em 
ploying  a  negro  under  contract  in  writing  according  to  the 
statute.2  The  second  section  reads  as  follows:  "If  any 
person  shall  entice  away,  from  the  service  of  another,  any 
laborer  employed  by  him  under  a  contract,  as  provided  by 
this  act,  or  shall  knowingly  employ  a  laborer  bound  to  ser 
vice  to  another  under  such  contract,  he  shall  forfeit  to  the 
party  aggrieved  not  less  than  ten  nor  more  than  twenty 
dollars  for  every  such  offense;  to  be  recovered  by  warrant 
before  any  justice  of  the  peace.'7 

This  section  provided  no  direct  penalty  for  the  viola 
tion  of  his  contract  by  the  negro;  yet  the  indirect  conse 
quences  to  him  were  very  severe.  If  a  negro  did  not  seek 
and  find  employment,  the  statutes  of  1866  regarded  him  as 
a  vagrant  and  provided  for  his  arrest  and  forced  labor.8 

iFor  facts  in  regard  to  uncertainty  and  unreliability  of  negro  labor 
in  1865  and  1S66,  see  the  preceding  chapter  on  the  evolution  of  a  wage 
system. 

3  Acts  1865-66,  p.  83. 

»Acte  1865-66,  pp.  91-93. 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6?  57 

Few  farmers,  as  dependent  on  hired  help  for  long  seasons 
as  were  the  tobacco  planters  in  the  eastern  section  of  the 
State,  would  employ  negroes  as  agricultural  laborers  for 
shorter  periods  than  two  months;  it  was  therefore  necessary 
for  the  great  body  of  negro  laborers  to  enter  into  long  con 
tracts  for  labor  or  remain  unemployed.  If  they  remained 
unemployed,  they  were  subject  to  the  penalties  for  vagran 
cy;  if  they  entered  into  contracts  for  labor  for  two  months 
or  longer,  they  were  practically  forced  to  remain  with  their 
employer,  since  it  was  unlawful  for  any  other  planter  to 
employ  them  while  under  contract. 

Within  two  weeks  after  the  passage  of  this  act  regu 
lating  and  protecting  contracts  between  white  and  colored 
persons,  the  Legislature,  in  the  fourth  section  of  an  act  en 
titled,4  "An  Act  to  encourage  Immigration  and  protect 
Immigrant  Labor"  enacted:  "That  any  immigrant, 
bound  by  contract  as  aforesaid,  who  shall,  without  good 
and  sufficient  cause,  abandon  or  leave  the  service  of  his  or 
her  employer,  shall  be  liable  to  said  employer  for  double 
the  amount  of  wages  for  the  unexpired  term  of  service;  and 
any  immigrant  who  shall  fail  to  enter  the  service  of  an 
employer  agreeable  to  contract,  shall  be  liable  in  like  man 
ner  and  for  a  like  amount;  and  the  claim  for  all  such  liabil 
ities  shall  be  a  lien  on  all  future  wages  of  such  immigrant, 
wherever  earned,  or  from  whomsoever  due,  until  the  same 
be  repaid:  and  any  person  who  shall  employ  any  immi 
grant,  or  otherwise  entice  any  immigrant  from  his  or  her 
employer,  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  on 
conviction  thereof,  shall  be  fined  in  a  sum  not  less  than  the 
amount  of  wages  for  the  unexpired  term  of  the  contract, 
and  may  be  imprisoned,  at  the  discretion  of  the  jury  trying 
the  case,  for  a  period  not  longer  than  six  months. " 

This  act  in  the  first  three  sections  legalized  labor  con 
tracts  between  citizens  of  Virginia  and  Europeans  desiring 
to  emigrate  to  Virginia,  by  declaring  that  all  such  contracts, 

<Acte  1865-66,  pp.  234-236. 


58  Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6? 

even  if  made  in  Europe,  were  enforceable  in  Virginia. 
The  fourth  section  above  quoted  provided  penalties  for  the 
violation  of  such  contracts  more  severe  than  were  inflicted 
on  negroes  for  violating  labor  contracts.  It  was  hoped 
that  most  of  the  immigrants  would  come  from  England  and 
Scotland.5  There  was  certainly  no  wish  on  the  part  of  the 
people  of  Virginia  to  enslave  these  white  Europeans  whom 
they  were  urging  by  all  possible  means  to  come  to  the  State.6 
It  was  felt  that  the  employer  of  labor  had  certain  rights  to 
the  service  of  the  employee  under  contract  for  long  service 
that  ought  to  be  protected  by  positive  statute. 

The  act  of  February  20,  1866,  regulating  and  protect 
ing  negro  labor  contracts,  and  the  act  of  March  3,  1866,  reg 
ulating  and  protecting  immigrant  labor  contracts,  were  both 
susceptible  of  abuse;  yet  it  does  not  appear  that  it  was  the 
intention  of  the  Legislature  to  imperil  the  rights  of  the 
freedmen  or  the  immigrants,  but  to  force  them  to  respect 
their  contracts.  The  uncertain  character  of  colored  labor 
in  Virginia  at  that  time  rendered  some  drastic  contract 
labor  law  necessary.  It  is  difficult  to  propose  any  that 
would  be  more  effective  or  subject  to  fewer  abuses  than 
the  act  of  Feb.  20,  1866. 


OHAPTEE  VIII. 
THE  SLAVE  CODE  EEPEALED. 

The  General  Assembly  of  Virginia,  in  a  sweeping  bill 
Feb.  27,  1866,  recognized  the  new  condition  of  the  former 
slaves  and  free  negroes  by  repealing  the  chief  features  of 

*Acts  1865-66,  p.  235. 
«Acts  1865-66,  pp.  287-293. 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6?  59 

the  old  slave  code.  All  "acts  and  parts  of  acts  relating  to 
slaves  and  slavery'7  were  expressly  repealed.7 

Chapter  one  hundred  and  seven  of  the  Code  of  1860 
relating  to  free  negroes  was  repealed.  This  chapter  con 
tained  very  minute  provisions  for  the  regulation  of  free 
negroes,  for  control  of  their  movements  and  for  their 
expulsion  from  the  State  if  they  failed  to  comply  with 
certain  legal  requirements  in  regard  to  registration.  All 
these  provisions  were  deliberately  swept  away  by  this  act. 

Likewise  chapter  two  hundred  of  the  Code  of  1860, 
which  provided  punishments  for  offenses  by  negroes,  was 
repealed.  This  chapter  defined  the  penalties  for  a  numer 
ous  class  of  crimes  by  negroes,  such  as  assaults  on  white 
men;  delivering  to  a  slave  a  copy  of  the  register  of  freedom; 
plotting  or  conspiring  to  rebel  or  make  insurrection;  mak 
ing  use  of  "provoking  language  or  menacing  gestures  to 
white  men;"  furnishing  "any  pass'1  to  a  negro;  keeping 
firearms  or  other  weapons;  "engaging  in  a  riot,  rout,  un 
lawful  assembly  or  making  seditious  speeches;"  selling, 
preparing  or  administering  any  medicine,  except  a  slave 
administering  medicine  by  his  master's  orders,  or  a  free 
negro  to  his  own  family  or  the  family  of  another  person  with 
the  consent  of  that  person.  Under  certain  conditions  a 
free  negro  could  be  sold  into  slavery.  This  whole  chapter 
with  its  long  list  of  special  crimes  and  punishments  for 
negroes  was  repealed. 

Chapter  ninety -eight  of  the  Code  of  1860  relating  to 
patrols  was  repealed.8  The  repeal  of  this  patrol  statute  in 
dicates  a  distinct  purpose  on  the  part  of  the  Legislature  to 
deal  with  the  negroes  as  free  men. 

The  Legislature  repealed  chapter  two  hundred  and 
twelve  of  the  Code  of  1860  relating  to  the  proceedings 
against  negroes.  In  this  act  it  was  declared  that,  "All 
laws  in  respect  to  crimes  and  punishment  and  in  respect  to 

?ActB  1865-66,  p.  84. 
»Acts  1865-66,  pp.  84-85. 


60  Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6? 

criminal  proceedings,  applicable  to  white  persons  shall  ap 
ply  in  like  manner  to  colored  persons  (and  to  Indians) 
unless  when  it  is  otherwise  specially  provided."8 

Sections  twenty-five  to  forty -seven,  both  inclusive,  of 
chapter  one  hundred  and  ninety-two,  providing  penalties 
and  punishments  for  persons  assisting  slaves  to  escape  from 
their  masters  and  to  leave  the  State,  were  repealed,  since 
the  whole  slave  system  was  recognized  as  destroyed.8 

The  Code  of  1860,  chapter  one  hundred  and  ninety- 
eight,  sections  twenty-six  to  twenty-nine,  inclusive,  made 
it  unlawful  for  any  free  person,  by  speaking  or  writing,  to 
maintain  that  the  owners  had  not  the  right  of  property  in 
their  slaves;  or  to  encourage  the  slaves  to  rebel  or  to  make 
insurrection  or  to  resist  their  masters.  This  chapter  also 
provided  that  postmasters  should  exercise  the  utmost  pre 
caution  to  see  that  nothing  of  an  inflammatory  nature  in 
regard  to  slavery  should  pass  through  the  mails.  All  these 
provisions  were  repealed  by  the  Legislature  Feb.  27,  1866. 
By  this  same  act,  section  thirty  of  chapter  one  hundred 
and  ninety-eight  of  the  Code,  forbidding  free  negroes  to  re 
main  in  the  State  without  permits  of  the  county  court 
where  the  negro  was  a  resident,  was  repealed. 

But  section  thirty-one  of  chapter  one  hundred  and 
ninety-eight  of  the  Code  of  1860  was  not  repealed.  It  reads 
as  follows:  "Any  free  person  who  shall  bring  a  free  negro 
into  this  State  shall  be  confined  in  jail  not  more  than  six 
months  and  fined  not  exceeding  five  hundred  dollars.  This 
section  shall  not  apply  to  a  person  traveling  into,  or 
through,  the  State  with  a  free  negro  as  a  servant,  nor  to  a 
master  or  skipper  of  a  vessel  or  steamboat,  with  a  free 
negro  on  board,  who  shall  depart  therewith;  but  any  such 
free  negro  who  shall  be  found  away  from  such  vessel  or 
boat,  or  from  the  lodging  of  his  employer,  except  on  busi 
ness  or  with  the  written  permission  of  such  master  or  em 
ployer,  shall  be  punished  with  stripes. " 

SActs  1865-66,  pp.  84-85. 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-67  61 

Section  thirty-two  of  chapter  one  hundred  and  ninety- 
eight  of  the  Code  of  1860  declared  that:  "No  free  negro 
shall  migrate  into  this  State."  "For  such  voluntary 
migration  on  the  part  of  a  free  negro  a  penalty  of  stripes 
and  cost  of  prosecution  was  to  be  inflicted  on  such  free 
negro  from  time  to  time  until  he  should  leave  the  State. " 
This  section  was  not  repealed. 

It  is  difficult  to  determine  to  what  extent  these  unre- 
pealed  provisions  were  executed  in  Virginia  during  the 
period  from  April,  1865,  to  April,  1867.  The  writer  has 
found  no  well  authenticated  instance  in  which  any  free 
negro  or  white  man  was  punished  for  violation  of  either  of 
these  provisions.  Besides,  it  is  expressly  stated  in  the 
act  of  February  27,  1866,  repealing  other  sections  of 
chapter  one  hundred  and  ninety-eight  of  the  Code, 
that,  "All  acts  and  parts  of  acts  imposing  on  negroes 
the  penalty  of  stripes  where  the  same  penalty  is 
not  imposed  on  white  persons,7'  are  repealed.9  These 
sections  of  the  Code  of  1860,  impairing  the  move 
ment  of  free  negroes  into  the  State,  were  allowed  to  remain 
on  the  statute  books  while  the  penalty  for  violation  of  them 
was  repealed  by  the  part  of  the  act  just  quoted,  since  no 
white  persons  were  subject  to  stripes  for  migrating  into  the 
State. 

By  this  same  act  of  Feb.  27,  1866,  the  statute  prohibit 
ing  harboring  negroes,  the  assembling  of  negroes  for  wor 
ship  when  such  worship  was  conducted  by  a  negro,  and 
every  assemblage  of  negroes  for  the  purpose  of  instruction 
in  reading  and  writing,  or  in  the  night  time  for  any  pur 
pose,  was  repealed.  The  laws  prohibiting  white  men  from 
meeting  with  negroes  to  instruct  them,  or  to  participate 
with  them  in  any  assembly,  were  repealed.  At  the  same 
time  all  restraints  on  the  freedom  of  buying  and  selling  agri 
cultural  produce  were  removed  from  the  negro  population.0 

»Acts  1866-66,  p.  86. 
°Acts  1865-66,  p.  85. 


62  Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6? 

A.  marked  advance  toward  the  full  recognition  of  the 
negro  as  a  freeman  was  made  when  the  Legislature  repealed 
the  statute  prohibiting  negroes  from  owning  firearms, 
swords  or  other  weapons  or  ammunition.1  This  statute 
was  repealed  despite  the  fact  that  many  people  in  the  State 
felt  that  it  was  unsafe  and  unwise  to  allow  the  negroes  to 
possess  arms2  in  such  an  unsettled  state  of  affairs  as  pre 
vailed  from  1865  to  1867,  when  it  was  feared  that  the 
negroes  would  reproduce  the  horrible  excesses  of  the  West 
Indian  freedmen. 


CHAPTEE  IX. 

OUTRAGES  ON  FREEDMEN,  AND  THE  CIVIL  COURTS 
FROM  1865  TO  1867. 

The  emancipation  of  more  than  one-half  million  slaves 
in  Virginia  at  the  close  of  a  prolonged  war  presented  many 
serious  problems  for  solution.  Tens  of  thousands  of  soldiers 
familiar  with  violence  were  returning  to  their  homes.  A 
laxity,  a  lawlessness,  a  proneness  to  commit  crime  and  in 
dulge  in  deeds  of  violence  are  the  unfailing  consequences  of 
war,  and  especially  of  civil  war.  This  disposition  did  not 
exist  in  Virginia  alone  but  was  felt  throughout  every  state 
in  the  Union,  even  in  the  Northern  states  farthest  re- 

lActs  1865  66,  p.  85. 

2Whig,  Jan.  4,  Jan.  15,  Aug.  4,  1866.  The  Confederacy  had  taken 
steps  to  enroll  slaves  as  soldiers  in  the  Confederate  army  in  the  spring  of 
1865.  Examiner,  March  18,  1865;  Dispatch,  March  25,  1865;  Schwab,  The 
Confederate  States  of  America,  page  194. 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6?  63 

moved  from  the  theatre  of  the  war.3  The  presence  of  a 
lately  emancipated  race,  excited  by  their  new-found  free 
dom  and  insolent  toward  their  former  masters,  aggravated 
the  otherwise  serious  problem  of  restoring  law  and  order  in 
the  prostrate  State.  There  were  many  acts  of  violence  and 
many  personal  encounters  between  whites  and  blacks,  yet 
the  surprising  fact  is  that  there  were  not  more.  The  expla 
nation  of  this  is  that  the  great  mass  of  the  whites  felt  no 
bitterness  toward  the  negro  for  the  events  of  the  four  pre 
ceding  years.  They  felt  that  the  colored  people  had  done 
little  or  nothing  to  secure  their  freedom.  They  did  not 
hate  them  or  wish  to  do  violence  to  them,  but  simply  re 
garded  them  as  an  inferior  race  for  whom  they  felt  a  kindly 
contempt.4  Yery  few,  if  any,  were  outraged  or  murdered 
from  any  effort  or  disposition  on  the  part  of  the  whites  to 
undo  their  emancipation  or  to  deny  them  the  enjoyment  of 
their  freedom.5  The  disputes  and  frays  between  the  whites 
and  blacks  were  generally  the  difficulties  that  are  likely  to 
accompany  the  intermingling  of  races  radically  different. 

Senator  Cowan  of  Pennsylvania,  after  an  examination 
of  the  charges  made  by  Senator  Wilson,  said  in  the  United 
States  Senate  in  regard  to  the  alleged  outrages  on  negroes: 
'  'Testified  to  by  nobody  either,  except  agents  of  the  Freed- 
men's  Bureau,  and  other  fellows  of  an  equally  interested 
stripe,  who,  like  the  hair  worms,  only  wriggle  in  muddy 
water.  These  fellows,  male  and  female,  have  found  the 
woes  of  the  negro  such  an  easy  and  profitable  way  to  fame 
and  consideration  that,  like  the  dogs  of  Lazarus,  they  live 
by  licking  his  sores;  and  to  hear  and  see  them  we  would 

President  Johnson's  message,  December,  1865,  on  returning  House 
Bill  No.  613,  p.  3839,  Congressional  Globe,  1865-66. 

*Gen.  Terry's  opinion,  Congressional  Globe,  1865-66,  p.  1833;  Ibid,  p. 
1156 ;  Julian's  speech,  Ibid,  p.  3210 ;  Blackwood's  Magazine,  May,  1866, 
p.  595. 

5Charlottesville  Chronicle,  Feb.  28,  1867 ;  Lynchburg  Virginian,  Jan. 
2, 1866,  Col.  Brown's  Report. 


64  Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6? 

think  the  world  was  exceedingly  wicked,  wholly  on  ac 
count  of  the  negro,  and  for  no  other  reason.  *  *  *  *  I 
am  inclined,  therefore,  to  think  that  in  the  first  place  these 
killings,  if  done  at  all,  are  not  done  by  any  but  common 
offenders.  Everybody  knows  the  tribal  antipathy  exist 
ing  between  the  lower  sort  of  white  men  and  negroes, 
and  no  one  expects  that  it  will  not  be  the  source  of 
frequent  brawls  and  quarrels,  especially  since  the 
blacks  have  now  no  masters  either  to  advise  or  protect 
them.  And  the  false  and  foolish  notion  of  equality 
which  you  have  lately  put  into  the  head  of  the  negro 
amounts  only  to  a  standing  invitation  to  every  white 
man  to  break  that  head  as  soon  as  it  insults  him. 
These  tales  are  too  monstrous  for  belief,  have  no  founda 
tion  upon  which  to  rest,  and  the  few  cases  which  give  rise 
to  them  would  no  doubt  show,  as  usual,  that  neither  of  the 
parties  are  wholly  innocent  or  wholly  guilty.  In  nine 
cases  out  of  ten  they  would  turn  out  mutual  brawls,  the 
consequence  of  which  is  often  the  most  fitting  punishment 
for  those  engaged  in  them.6  One  man  out  of  ten  thousand 
is  brutal  to  a  negro,  and  that  is  paraded  here  as  a  type  of 
the  whole  people  of  the  South,  whereas  nothing  is  said  of 
the  other  nine  thousand  nine  hundred  and  ninety-nine  men 
who  treat  the  negro  well.777 

At  present  nothing  seems  clearer  than  that  most  of  the 
conflicts  had  no  political  significance  and  were  only  com 
mon  brawls  and  combats,  such  as  are  summarily  disposed 
of  by  a  police  judge  or  a  justice  of  the  peace;  yet  this  long 
list  of  disputes  and  conflicts  was  paraded  in  Congress  as  a 
justification  of  the  Freedmen's  Bureau  and  as  a  proof  of  the 
insecurity  of  the  rights  of  freedmen.8  The  number  of  such 

6App.  Congressional  Globe,  1866-67,  p.  154. 
^Congressional  Globe,  1865-66,  p.  96. 

SQen.  Howard's  report,  p.  671,  Messages  and  Documents,  1866-67 ;  Rev. 
Rickmond's  speech,  Charlottesville  Chronicle,  April  25,  1867.  See  speeches 
of  Senator  Wilson,  Representative  Julian  and  other  radical  leaders,  Con 
gressional  Globe,  1865-67. 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6?  65 

difficulties  was  small,  when  it  is  remembered  that  there 
were  more  than  one  half  million  negroes  in  the  State  of 
Virginia.  It  was  never  claimed  that  freedmen  in  Virginia 
experienced  any  difficulty  in  securing  justice  from  the  State 
courts  in  suits  involving  money  or  property.9  It  was, 
however,  asserted  that  juries  were  inclined  to  inflict  on 
negroes  the  maximum  penalties  of  the  law,  in  cases  of 
theft,  burglary  or  such  offenses;  that  they  were  too  rigor 
ous  in  their  condemnation  of  comparatively  mild  offenses;0 
but  it  was  not  charged  that  the  processes  of  the  courts  and 
the  decision  of  the  jurors  were  not  strictly  according  to  the 
statutory  provisions  of  the  Code  of  I860,  which  the  Legisla 
ture  in  is  session  of  1865-66  had  made  applicable  to  whites 
and  blacks  alike.1 

It  was  declared,  moreover,  very  difficult,  if  not  impos 
sible,  to  secure  a  verdict  against  a  white  man  for  assaulting 
or  murdering  a  black.2  The  great  mass  of  the  whites  were 
not  disposed  to  permit  any  insolence  on  the  part  of  the 
negroes.  The  deep-seated  conviction  in  the  minds  of  the 
whites  that  the  negroes  were  an  inferior  race  and  should  be 
subordinate  to  white  men  in  the  community,  made  the 
whites  less  tolerant  of  any  independence  and  aggressive 
ness  on  their  part,  and  rendered  conflicts  between  the  two 
races  more  frequent.  It  was  often  said:  "The  negro  is  all 
right  in  his  place."  Of  course  this  means  that  he  is  all 

9Gen.  Schofield's  opinion,  App.  Congressional  Globe,  1866-67,  p.  95 ; 
Ibid,  Messages  and  Documents  of  U.S.  Government,  1866-67,  p.  340.  Judge 
Sheffey,  in  his  charge  to  grand  juries,  urges  that  equal  and  impartial  jus 
tice  shall  be  given  to  freedmen.  This  charge  was  published  by  special 
request  of  the  bar  of  Amherst  and  Rockbridge  counties,  Whig,  April  23, 
1866.  For  similar  charge  by  Judge  Christian,  in  Henrico  county,  and  for 
editorial  comment  on  these  charges,  see  Whig,  April  28,  1866. 

°Col.  O.  Brown's  Report,  Congressional  Globe,  1866-67,  p.  1569 ;  Senator 
Van  Winkle's  statement,  Ibid,  p.  1465 ;  Gen.  Howard's  Report,  pp.  663-664, 
Messages  and  Documents,  1867-68. 

^Senator  Van  Winkle's  speech,  Congressional  Globe,  1866-67,  p.  1465. 
2App.  Congressional  Globe,  1866-67,  p.  95. 


66  Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-67 

wrong  out  of  his  place.3  Most  of  the  Virginians  had,  and 
still  have,  very  definite  ideas  of  what  a  negro's  place  is. 
If  a  negro  attempted  to  cross  this  more  or  less  well-defined 
limit  and  to  use  insolent  and  insulting  language  to  a  white 
man,  he  was  liable  to  suffer  the  consequences,  and  juries 
were  not  disposed  to  impose  on  his  assailant  the  maximum 
penalties  of  the  law.  On  the  other  hand  the  wanton  assault 
of  a  freedman  by  a  white  man  was  severely  condemned  by 
the  great  mass  of  the  whites.  For  such  offenses  white 
juries  and  courts  manifested  no  sympathy  and  punished  the 
aggressor  with  the  full  penalties  of  the  statute. 

The  trial  of  Dr.  Watson  for  the  alleged  cold-blooded 
murder  of  a  negro  in  the  summer  of  1866  and  his  acquittal 
by  a  white  court  of  his  county  was  the  most  famous  case  in 
the  criminal  courts  of  Virginia  during  this  period.  It  was 
said  that,  on  very  slight  provocation,  he  had,  after  a  lapse 
of  nearly  twenty-four  hours,  shot  and  killed  a  negro,  the 
coachman  of  one  of  his  neighbors.  In  November,  1866, 
Dr.  Wateon  was  tried  and  acquitted  in  Eockbridge  county. 
Thereupon  Gen.  John  M.  Schofield,  the  military  officer  in 
command  in  Virginia,  ordered  him  rearrested  and  tried  by 
a  military  commission  under  the  congressional  act  of  July 
16,  1866.  On  the  assembling  of  the  Commission  Court  a 
writ  of  habeas  corpus  was  sued  out  before  the  Circuit  Court 
of  Eichmond,  to  which  General  Schofield  declined  compli 
ance,  Dec.  19,  1866.  In  the  meantime  the  Attorney  Gen 
eral  of  the  United  States  had  investigated  the  case  and  de 
cided  that  the  Commission  Court  had  no  jurisdiction.  The 
President  then  ordered  Dr.  Watson  discharged.4 

Gen.  Schofield  declared  the  Watson  case  "a  fair  type 
of  a  large  number  of  cases  in  Virginia.7'5  If  this  case  was 

Sfilackwood's  Magazine,  May,  1866,  p.  595. 

^American  Annual  Cyclopaedia,  1866,  p  765;  Richmond  Dispatch,  Jan. 
4,  1867;  Congressional  Globe,  1866-67,  p.  1565;  App.  Congressional  Globe, 
1866-67,  p.  95;  Whig,  Dec.  20,  1866;  Enquirer,  Dec.  18,  1866;  Dispatch, 
Jan.  4,  1867. 

$Gen.  Schofield's  statement,  App.  Congressional  Globe,  1866-67,  p.  95.. 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6?  67 

such  as  he  represented  it,  the  declaration  that  it  was  a 
"fair  type''  of  many  other  cases  in  the  State  is  entirely  too 
strong.  Hon.  S.  McD.  Moore,  of  Lexington,  Eockbridge 
county,  Virginia,  in  a  letter  read  by  Senator  Doolittle  in 
the  United  States  Senate,  Feb.  19,  1867,  says:  "As  good 
order  prevails  and  the  laws  are  generally  as  well  admin 
istered  as  I  have  known  to  be  the  case  for  the 
last  fifty  years."6  He  declares  that  most  of  the  reports 
in  regard  to  the  unjust  administration  of  the  laws  had 
arisen  from  two  cases  in  that  section  of  the  State. 
One  of  the  two  cases  was  the  Watson  affair.  A  few  such 
cases  as  this  is  said  to  have  been  did  much  to  create 
the  impression  in  the  North  that  the  murder  of  a  negro 
was  in  Virginia  considered  perfectly  justifiable  if  the  negro 
had  been  insolent  or  insubordinate. 

Many  in  Congress  and  in  the  North  believed  that  the 
average  Virginian  entertained  a  deadly  hatred  of  the  ne 
groes  whom  they  were  anxious  to  kill  as  having  no  longer 
the  place  or  value  of  chattel  slaves.  Entertaining  these 
opinions,  they  confidently  declared  that  every  murder  of  a 
negro  by  a  white  man  and  every  failure  of  a  court  to  pun 
ish  the  white  man  was  confirmation  of  their  opinions  and 
rendered  vigorous  intervention  by  the  Federal  Government 
the  only  salvation  of  the  freedinen.  In  their  opinion  the 
Freedmen's  Bureau,  the  Freedmen's  Court,  the  Civil 
Eights  Bill,  the  Military  Commissions,  and  the  Eeconstruc- 
tiou  Acts  were  necessary  to  protect  the  lives  of  the  negroes. 
The  number  in  the  United  States  actually  entertaining  these 
opinions  was  not  large,  but  they  were  earnest  and  aggres 
sive.  The  politicians  and  the  unscrupulous  made  use  of 
the  sincerity  of  this  class  for  purposes  purely  personal  or 
for  party  advantage. 

The  number  of  actual  outrages  was  never  large.7    The 

^Congressional  Globe,  1866-67,  p.  1567. 

'Enquirer  editorial,  July  24,  1866;  Whig,  March  23,  Nov.  22,  Nov.  28, 
1866.    It  was  alleged  by  the  negroes  and  their  friends  that  the  whites  had, 


68  Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6? 

press  of  the  State  generally  declared  that  good  order  pre 
vailed  throughout  Virginia  at  that  time.  The  Charlottes- 
ville  Chronicle,  February  28,  1867,  says:  "We  can  speak 
for  Virginia,  there  never  was  less  crime  (except  thieving 
on  the  part  of  the  freedmen)  in  this  State.  There  have 
doubtless  been  negroes  killed  by  white  men  and  white  men 
killed  by  negroes,  but  on  the  whole,  a  more  orderly  and 
law-abiding  community  does  not,  in  our  opinion,  exist  on 
this  continent,  if  anywhere."  The  Eichmond  Dispatch 
considered  that  the  administration  of  justice  in  Virginia 
was  at  that  time  approximately  fair  and  equal. 

The  freedmen  had  learned  that  their  most  trivial 
charges  against  each  other  or  the  whites  would  receive  a 
ready  hearing  by  the  agents  of  the  Freedmen' s  Bureau,  and 
they  did  not  allow  the  Bureau  agents  to  eat  much  idle 
bread.  No  report  of  outrages,  however  absurd  or  poorly 
attested,  was  neglected.  The  most  trivial  brawl  was  mag 
nified  into  a  riot  in  which  many  were  wounded  and  killed. 
By  the  time  these  disturbances  had  been  reported  in  the 
radical  press  and  announced  in  the  United  States  Congress 
by  Senator  Wilson,  or  some  equally  imaginative  member 
of  the  House,  they  absolutely  defied  recognition  even  by 
the  parties  to  the  original  brawl.  The  "scalawags," 
"carpetbaggers"  and  newspaper  correspondents  industri 
ously  gathered  and  disseminated  the  reports  of  outrages  on 
colored  people. 

Amongst  so  large  a  number  of  people  many  brawls 
and  petty  disturbances  would  occur  in  the  most  peaceful 
times,  and  under  the  most  ideal  conditions;  yet  the  con 
gressional  radicals  shut  their  eyes  to  these  facts  and  made 
no  allowances  for  the  fact  that  the  State  was  just  emerging 
from  a  prolonged  war,  and  was  further  embarrassed  by  the 


in  various  places  in  the  South,  burned  or  destroyed  negro  churches  and 
school  houses,  Very  few,  if  any,  such  buildings  were  destroyed  by  the 
whites  in  Virginia.  The  Whig,  May  7,  1866,  declares  that  no  negro 
churches  had  been  burned  by  the  whites  in  Virginia. 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-67  69 

presence  of  the  lately  emancipated  slaves.  Senator  Wilson 
and  other  radical  members  of  Congress  brought  forward  the 
long  list  of  suits,  brawls  and  outrages  as  a  justification  of 
the  various  acts  passed  by  Congress  for  the  protection  of 
the  negroes.  In  reply  to  these  charges  Senator  Davis,  in  a 
speech  in  the  Senate,  after  full  examination  of  the  lawless 
acts  reported  by  the  congressional  radicals,  declared  that 
in  his  deliberate  opinion  there  was  not  as  much  lawless 
ness  and  violence  in  any  six  of  the  states  lately  in  rebellion 
as  in  the  single  state  of  New  York.8  Other  members  of 
Congress  who  had  investigated  the  matter  were  almost 
equally  strenuous  in  their  denial  of  the  alleged  outrages. 

The  evidence  in  support  of  the  truthfulness  of  these 
charges  is  to  the  highest  degree  unsatisfactory  and  uncon 
vincing.9  They  were  in  many  cases  entire  fabrications 
without  the  slightest  basis  of  fact.  As  a  single  instance  of 
their  utter  unreliability,  it  was  reported  in  the  radical 
papers  that  several  negroes  had  been  shamefully  outraged 
at  Lynchburg,  Virginia.  The  details  of  the  affair  were 
given  with  great  minuteness;  the  name  of  the  Freedmen's 
Bureau  agent  at  that  place,  making  the  official  report  of 
what  he  had  seen  and  learned  by  investigation,  was  given. 
When  these  reports  finally  reached  Lynchburg  no  one 
there  had  heard  of  the  outrages  or  anything  like  them. 
The  Bureau  agent  declared  that  no  one  having  the  name  of 
the  reporter  of  these  lawless  acts  had  ever  been  connected 
with  his  Bureau  in  Lynchburg;  that  no  such  acts  had 
occurred,  and  that  the  very  best  of  order  prevailed  in  his 
entire  sub- district.0 

This  report  is  a  fair  sample   of  hundreds  that  were 
published   in  the  radical    papers  outside  of    the   State. 

8Congressional  Globe,  1866-67,  p.  1466. 

9For  evidence  of  the  unreliable  character  of  many  of  the  reported 
outrages  and  the  effect  of  such  reports  on  Northern  public  opinion,  see 
Congressional  Globe,  1865-66,  pp.  1407-1411;  Whig,  Nov.  3,  1866. 

°Lynchburg  Virginian,  Aug.  10,  1866. 


70  Negroes  and  Their  Ireatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6? 

Most  of  the  writers  of  these  letters  giving  accounts 
of  the  assault  and  murder  of  negroes  asked  to  have 
their  names  kept  secret,  declaring  that  it  would  imperil 
their  lives  to  have  it  known  that  they  had  reported  these 
outrages.  Their  wishes  were  respected,  and  they  were 
thus  emboldened  to  flood  the  Congressional  Committee  on 
Eeconstruction  with  such  reports  as  malice  or  party  inter 
est  could  invent. 

General  O.  O.  Howard,  the  Commissioner  of  the  Freed- 
men's  Bureau,  in  his  annual  report  for  1866,  declared  that 
the  number  of  conflicts  between  whites  and  blacks  in  Vir 
ginia  constantly  grew  less,  and  that  the  position  of  the 
negroes  was  improving,  yet  the  complaint  was  made  that 
in  some  parts  of  the  State  the  negroes  were  occasionally 
outraged  and  that  the  offenders  usually  were  not  punished 
by  the  minor  judicial  tribunals  of  the  State,  if  it  was 
charged  that  the  negro  had  been  insubordinate  or  insolent 
to  a  white  man.1 

In  his  report  of  November,  1866,  General  O.  O.  How 
ard  said  in  regard  to  the  six  counties  bordering  on  the 
Potomac  which  were  included  in  the  military  district  of 
Maryland:  "The  condition  of  the  freedmen  in  the  portion 
of  Virginia  included  within  this  district,  as  shown  by  the 
report  of  General  Stanard  for  the  months  ending  May  and 
June,  1866,  and  the  official  records  for  succeeding  months, 
has  been  generally  satisfactory.  No  complaints  of  a  serious 
nature  were  received."2 

In  reference  to  the  condition  of  affairs  in  Virginia, 
in  the  same  report  he  says:  "Some  improvement  is  re 
ported  in  the  feeling  of  the  whites  towards  the  freedmen, 
and  yet  the  numerous  murders  and  robberies  of  which  this 
office  is  notified  are  evidences  of  bad  feeling  or  weakness 

!Gen.   Howard's  Report,   Messages  and  Documents,   1866-67,  p.  671. 
Gen.  Schofield's  opinion,  App.  Congressional  Globe,  1866-67,  p.  95. 

^Messages  and  Documents,  1866-67,  p.  688. 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-67  71 

on  the  part  of  the  State  officials  whose  duty  it  is  to  pre 
serve  the  peace  and  to  punish  crime."8 

The  number  and  character  of  the  outrages  on  negroes 
reported  to  the  Freedmen's  Bureau  were  grossly  exagger 
ated.  As  a  rule  the  Bureau  officials  did  not  examine  the 
evidence  in  support  of  these  chaiges,  but  reported  and  in 
a  large  measure  acted  on  ex  parte  testimony.  In  times  of 
great  pubic  excitement  the  wildest  reports  gain  credence. 
At  that  time  the  air  was  full  of  reports  of  outrages  and 
riots,  most  of  which  had  not  the  slightest  foundation  in 
fact.  Most  of  the  "numerous  murders  and  robberies"  to 
which  General  Howard  refers  in  his  report  were  of  this 
class. 

He  made  this  report  about  the  time  the  excitement  in 
regard  to  the  Dr.  Watson  case  was  highest,  and  doubtless 
had  that  particular  case  in  mind  when  speaking  of  the 
"bad  feeling  or  weakness"  of  the  courts. 

General  Terry,  the  military  commander  in  the  Depart 
ment  of  Virginia,  declared  that  it  would  be  unsafe  to  en 
trust  the  great  body  of  the  freedmen  in  Virginia  or  else 
where  in  the  South  to  the  care  of  the  local  authorities  or 
the  local  legislation. 

His  chief  grounds  for  this  opinion  was  that  the  whites 
hated  the  negroes  on  account  of  their  attachment  to  the 
"Union,"  and  if  the  protecting  hand  of  the  United  States 
Government  were  withdrawn  would  so  harrassand  embitter 
their  lives  that  they  would  rise  in  bloody  insurrection 
against  their  oppressors.4  It  seems  never  to  have  been 
clear  to  many  of  the  army  officers  that  the  white  people  of 
the  State  did  not  hold  the  negroes  responsible  for  the  war  and 
its  consequences  and  did  not  entertain  for  them  any  feeling 
of  personal  hostility  on  account  of  their  changed  condition. 

3Ibid,   p.  671.      See  Col.   O.   Brown's  Report,   Congressional  Globe, 
1866-67,  p.  1569. 

4Testimony  of  Gen.  Terry  given   before  the  Reconstruction  Commit 
tee,  p.  1833,  Globe,  1865-66;  Enquirer,  March  31,  1866. 


72  Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6? 

Whatever  feeling  there  was  that  the  negro  should  not  enjoy 
full  civil  or  political  privileges  did  not  arise  from  any 
hatred  of  him  as  a  race  or  as  an  individual,  but  from  a  fixed 
and  firm  conviction  that  he  was  an  inferior  race,  incapable 
of  the  highest  duties  and  privileges  of  citizenship  in  a  dem 
ocratic  commonwealth. 

The  whites  were  always  ready  to  resent  any  attempt 
by  a  negro  to  force  himself  into  a  position  of  social  equality 
or  to  assume  the  political  leadership  of  the  community. 
From  these  causes  arose  many  of  the  conflicts  between  the 
two  races.  The  number  of  such  conflicts  was  considerably 
increased  after  the  passage  of  the  Eeconstruction  Acts  of 
1867  and  the  enfranchisement  of  the  negroes.5 

Before  the  passage  of  the  Eeconstruction  Acts  in  the 
spring  of  1867,  the  Ku  Klux  Klan  was  unknown  in  Vir 
ginia.  No  mention  is  made  in  the  Bureau  reports  of  such 
an  organization  until  1868.  It  was  then  declared  that  the 
operations  of  these  organizations  "have  been  very  rare  in 
this  State."  The  word  "Ku  Klux"  as  used  at  that  time 
was  a  generic  term  for  all  lawless  secret  combinations  or 
ganized  to  frighten  or  maltreat  negroes. 

Colonel  Brown  in  his  report  of  the  operations  of  the 
Freedmen's  Bureau  in  Virginia  for  the  month  of  April, 
1868,  says:  "The  secret  organization  known  as  the  Ku 
Klux  Klan  have  made  their  appearance  in  various  locali 
ties,  visiting  the  houses  of  colored  men,  at  night  in  some 
cases,  placing  ropes  around  their  necks  and  threatening  to 
hang  them  on  account  of  their  political  opinions.  No 
further  violence  has  been  offered.  The  object  of  these  mid 
night  demonstrations,  which  have  been  very  rare  in  this 
State,  appears  to  be  to  intimidate  and  control  the  freedmen 
in  the  exercise  of  their  right  of  franchise."6 


6See  newspapers  of  the  State  for  increased  number  of  conflicts  be 
tween  whites  and  blacks  after  the  enfranchisement  of  the  freedmen. 

«P.  510,  Messages  and  Documents  of  U.  S.  Government,  1868-69. 


Negroes  and  Iheir  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6?  73 

This  is  his  first  reference  to  such  lawless  bands. 
From  this  report  it  is  seen  that  the  object  of  these  organi 
zations  in  Virginia  was  not  to  plunder  or  murder  negroes 
but  to  deter  them  from  exercising  "their  right  of  fran 
chise.  ' ' 

The  negroes  were  subjected  to  some  outrages  from  a 
very  unexpected  source.  Some  of  the  Federal  soldiers  in 
Virginia  in  1865  "took  considerable  liberties  with  them  and 
their  belongings."  In  some  instances  they  "plundered" 
them.7  They  ' 'spread  the  tents  and  threw  up  the  negroes. " 
In  this  way  many  were  hurt  and  some  were  reported  killed. 
A  Federal  soldier  at  Charlottesville  relieved  Eev.  Fairfax 
Taylor,  a  prominent  colored  leader,  of  his  watch.  The 
soldiers  stationed  in  Virginia  after  the  war  were  frequently 
engaged  in  brawls  and  personal  encounters  with  the  freed- 
men.  Some  negroes  were  "tied  up"  by  army  officers  to 
force  them  to  tell  the  truth.8  These  troubles  between 
negroes  and  soldiers  were  of  the  same  kind  and  originated 
from  the  same  causes  that  brought  on  similar  altercations 
and  contests  between  blacks  and  native  Virginians. 

Many  agents  of  the  Freedmen's  Bureau  oppressed  and 
swindled  the  freedmen.  Other  persons  went  about  from  place 
to  place  assuring  them  that  they  were  soon  to  be  given  the 
land  of  the  former  slaveholders.  In  some  instances  they 
went  so  far  as  to  stake  off  the  farms  into  sections  of  about 
forty  acres  each.  These  lands  were  to  be  given  them  as 
pay  for  their  past  services  as  slaves  and  for  their  devotion 
to  the  Union.  Frequently  these  impostors  pretended  to 
put  the  credulous  negroes  in  possession  of  the  land,  and 
collected  a  fee  to  pay  for  the  title  deed  which  they  gave 
them  to  establish  their  ownership.  One  of  the  deeds  given 
to  an  Albemarle  county  negro  read  as  follows  :  "As 

fWaddell,  History  of  Augusta  County,  pp.  319,  325;  Ibid,  337-338. 
SMessages  and  Documents  of  U.  S.  Government,  1867-68,  p.  289. 


74  Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6? 

Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the  wilderness,  so  have  I 
lifted  five  dollars  out  of  this  nigger's  pocket."9 

The  belief  that  they  were  to  be  given  the  lands  of  the 
late  Confederates  persisted  in  the  minds  of  the  freedmen 
for  several  years  after  the  close  of  the  war.  The  fact  that 
the  lands  seized  by  the  United  States  Government,  the 
so-called  abandoned  lands,  were  then  occupied  by  the 
negroes  under  the  direction  of  the  Freedmen' s  Buieau,  led 
the  great  mass  of  them  to  believe  that  they,  too,  would 
soon  secure  their  share  of  land.  This  credulous  and 
expectant  attitude  of  mind  rendered  them  ready  victims  of 
the  unscrupulous  "scalawags"  and  "carpetbaggers,"  who 
did  not  neglect  the  opportunity  to  enrich  themselves  at  the 
expense  of  their  dupes.  Their  ingenuity  in  devising 
plausible  schemes  for  swindling  the  negroes  was  truly 
admirable.  Many  of  them  represented  themselves  as  con 
fidential  agents  of  influential  government  officials,  or  as 
friends  and  representatives  of  philanthropic  individuals  or 
societies  in  the  North,  who  were  said  to  be  preparing  great 
things  for  the  negroes.  After  winning  the  ready  confi 
dence  of  the  freedmen  they  received  from  them,  under 
various  pretexts,  considerable  sums  of  money,  and  created 
expectations  that  could  never  be  realized. 

Quite  a  serious  riot  broke  out  in  Norfolk  in  the  night 
of  April  16,  1866.  The  freedmen  met  to  celebrate  the 
passage  of  the  Civil  Eights  Bill.  About  twelve  o'clock  a 
shot  was  fired  on  Nicholson  street.  A  general  row  fol 
lowed.  An  innocent  white  spectator  named  Whitehurst 
was  shot  dead;  Mrs.  Whitehurst  (a  white  woman)  was 
mortally  wounded;  several  others  were  hurt,  and  one  negro 
was  shot  in  the  eye.  There  was  much  drinking  amongst 
the  colored  people  that  night.  One  colored  woman  was 
arrested  on  account  of  her  inflammatory  and  threatening 
language.  Major  Stanhope,  of  the  United  States  army, 

9Most  of  the  facts  in  regard  to  these  impostors  were  obtained  from 
negroes  who  knew  them  from  personal  experience.  See  Documents 
Relating  to  Reconstruction,  (passim) ,  edited  by  Fleming. 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6?  75 

immediately  sent  out  an  armed  force  and  dispersed  the 
mob.  In  a  short  time  four  arrests  were  made.0  In  regard 
to  this  tumult  there  were  various  conflicting  reports.1 

From  this  review  of  the  "outrages  on  negroes  and  the 
action  of  the  courts"  it  is  seen  that  the  actual  number  of 
outrages  was  small  when  it  is  considered  that  more  than 
one-half  million  freedmen  were  turned  loose  amongst  a 
white  population  of  more  than  seven  hundred  thousand, 
at  a  time  when  society  was  demoralized  by  the  results  of 
war;  that  the  whites  did  not  cherish  any  hatred  toward  the 
negroes  on  account  of  the  events  of  the  preceding  four 
years;  that  the  combats  between  whites  and  blacks  did  not, 
in  most  cases,  arise  from  any  attempt  to  undo  or  minimize 
the  results  of  emancipation,  but  were  generally  the  results 
of  mutual  brawls;  that  some  of  the  attacks  on  negroes  by 
white  men  were  provoked  by  insolence  or  insulting  lan 
guage  on  the  part  of  the  blacks;  that  in  such  cases  the 
courts  of  Virginia  sometimes  refused  to  find  the  white 
aggressors  guilty  of  any  offense;  that  the  courts  had  little 
disposition  to  excuse  or  acquit  a  white  man  who  had 
assaulted  or  murdered  a  negro  who  had  not  been  insolent 
or  insulting  and  had  conducted  himself  in  the  manner 
which  most  white  people  thought  becoming  a  free  negro; 
that  freedmen  in  the  Virginia  courts  experienced  little  or 
no  difficulty  in  securing  justice  in  money  or  property  mat 
ters;  that  in  proceedings  against  negroes  charged  with 
thefts,  burglaries,  and  murders,  juries  usually  imposed  some 
thing  like  the  maximum  penalties.  It  has  been  seen  that 
they  were  sometimes  wronged  by  their  supposed  friends, 
the  soldiers,  "the  scalawags"  and  *  'carpetbaggers. "  From 
the  reports  of  the  officers  of  the  Freedmen' s  Bureau  and 
the  press,  it  is  seen  that  the  condition  of  the  freedmen  was 
constantly  improving  from  1865  to  1867;  that  lawlessness 
in  the  State  was  rapidly  decreasing,  and  that  the  decisions 
of  the  civil  courts  were  approaching  fairness. 

°Lynchburg  Virginian,   April  20,  1866. 

1  According  to  some  reports  two  negroes  were  killed. 


76  Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6? 

CHAPTEE  X. 
PKEEDMEN  AND  CIVIL  EIGHTS  IN  1865  AND  1866. 

The  Legislature  that  convened  in  Eichmond  in  Decem 
ber,  1865,  met  under  the  provisions  of  the  constitution  pro 
mulgated  at  Alexandria,  in  1864,  by  the  "restored  govern 
ment'  '  of  Virginia.  The  constitution  of  the  State  in  force 
before  and  during  the  war  had  fallen  with  the  State  gov 
ernment  at  Eichmond. 

The  Alexandria  constitution  had  abolished  slavery 
bj  the  following  provisions :  "Slavery  and  involuntary 
servitude  (except  for  crime)  is  hereby  abolished  and  pro 
hibited  in  the  State  forever.'7  "The  General  Assembly 
shall  make  no  law  establishing  slavery  or  recognizing  prop 
erty  in  human  beings."  The  Legislature  of  "restored  Vir 
ginia"  had,  however,  enacted  but  few  laws  in  regard  to 
negroes. 

At  the  close  of  hostilities  in  Virginia  people  recog 
nized  that  the  results  of  the  war  had  effectually  freed  the 
slaves;  yet  there  had  been  no  State  legislation  to  define 
their  status.  The  old  "free  negro"  laws  of  the  Code  of 
1860  were  still  on  the  statute  book.2  The  slaves  had,  so  far 
as  State  legislative  enactments  are  concerned,  succeeded  to 
the  status  of  i  'free  negroes' '  as  defined  by  the  Code  of  1860, 
but  the  war  had  done  more  than  this  for  them.  The  white 
people  of  the  State  knew  that  the  Legislature  would  have 

2A  delegation  of  negroes  from  Richmond  called  on  President  Johnson 
in  June,  1865,  and  claimed  that  their  condition  as  freedmen  was  worse 
than  it  was  when  they  were  slaves.  They  stated  that  passes  were  re 
quired  of  them  in  Richmond ;  that  the  old  free  negro  laws  still  prevailed ; 
that  they  experienced  difficulty  in  holding  their  church  property ;  that 
they  could  not  appeal  to  the  courts  for  justice  and  protection,  and  that 
they  suffered  numerous  other  wrongs.  President  Johnson  told  them  that 
matters  were  in  a  state  of  transition  and  that  many  things  must  be  en 
dured  until  they  could  be  remedied.  Republic,  June  19,  1865. 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6?  77 

to  define  anew  the  rights  of  free  colored  men,  and  sooner  or 
later  grant  to  them  the  whole  list  of  civil  rights  and  some 
political  rights. 

Owing  to  the  peculiar  situation  in  Virginia  it  was  dif 
ficult  to  effect  an  early  meeting  of  a  representative  law- 
making  body  to  adjust  the  laws  of  the  State  to  the  changed 
conditiODS.  A  representative  General  Assembly  of  the 
State  convened  in  December,  1865,  and  immediately  took 
up  the  question  of  the  freedmen. 

In  a  joint  resolution  the  Legislature,  February  6, 1866, 
expressed  its  opinion  on  slavery  and  the  future  position  of 
the  freedmen  in  the  following  language:8  "That  involun 
tary  servitude,  except  for  crime,  is  abolished,  and  ought 
not  to  be  re-established;  and  that  the  negro  race  among  us 
should  be  treated  with  justice,  humanity  and  good  faith; 
and  every  means  that  the  wisdom  of  the  Legislature  can 
devise,  should  be  used  to  make  them  useful  and  intelligent 
members  of  society. ? ' 

"That  Virginia  will  not  voluntarily  consent  to  change 
the  adjustment  of  political  power  as  fixed  by  the  Constitu 
tion  of  the  United  States;  and  to  constrain  her  to  do  so  in 
her  present  prostrate  and  helpless  condition,  with  no  voice 
in  the  councils  of  the  nation,  would  be  an  unjustifiable 
breach  of  faith.7' 

This  resolution  expressed  about  what  the  white  people 
of  the  State  felt.  The  statement  that  Virginia  would  not 
voluntarily  consent  to  change  the  adjustment  of  political 
power  was  intended  as  a  declaration  of  hostility  to  the 
enfranchisement  of  the  freedmen,  which  the  people  were 
unwilling  to  accept,  either  in  1866  or  in  1867,  when  it  was 
thrust  upon  the  State  by  congressional  legislation. 

In  January  and  February,  1866,  several  important 
bills  touching  the  freedmen  were  enacted  into  laws,  About 
nine  months  had  by  that  time  passed  since  the  close  of 
hostilities  in  Virginia  and  the  practical  emancipation  of 

,  1865-66,  p.  449. 


78  Negroes  and  Iheir  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-67 

every  slave  in  the  State.  In  the  meantime,  the  legal  posi 
tion  of  the  freedmen  was  very  indefinite. 

March  3,  1865,  Congress  had  passed  a  very  mild 
Freedmen's  Bureau  Bill,  which  lacked  all  the  drastic  fea 
tures  of  the  Freedmen' s  Bill  of  1866.  The  purpose  of  this 
bill  in  1865  was  only  to  assume  charge  of  all  '  'abandoned 
lauds"  and  the  control  of  all  subjects  relating  to  freedmen. 
There  was  a  real  need  of  some  such  agency  as  this  bill  pro 
vided  to  advise  and  protect  the  freedmen  during  the  sum 
mer  and  fall  of  1865.  The  opposition  to  the  presence  and 
work  of  the  Bureau  agents  was  not  so  bitter  in  1865  as  it 
was  in  the  years  following,  when  they  were  invested  with 
much  greater  power,  and  the  necessity  for  their  inter 
ference  no  longer  existed.4 

By  the  Code  of  1860  free  negroes  were  allowed  to  testify- 
only  in  the  case  of  the  Commonwealth  for  or  against  a 
negro  or  an  Indian,  or  in  a  civil  case  to  which  negroes  or 
Indians  only  were  parties.  They  were  not  allowed  the 
right  of  trial  by  jury,  to  carry  arms,  or  to  be  away  from 
their  place  of  abode  later  than  ten  o'  clock  at  night.  They 
were  also  subject  to  many  other  minor  restraints  that  were 
unnecessary  and  impracticable  in  the  changed  state  of 
affairs  in  the  summer  and  fall  of  1865. 

Although  there  had  been  no  statutory  change,  the 
people  felt  that  the  status  of  the  free  negro  had  in  fact  been 
revolutionized.  In  the  Alexandria  County  Court  a  negro 
was  put  on  trial  without  a  jury  in  September,  1865,  and 
sentenced  to  two  years  in  the  penitentiary.  The  negro's 
counsel  moved  to  arrest  the  judgment  on  the  ground  that 
the  negro,  being  a  freeman,  had  the  right  of  trial  by  jury. 
The  opposing  counsel  contended  that  the  free  negro  pro 
ceedings  were  legal,  the  Code  of  Virginia  providing  that  a 
free  negro  should  be  tried  for  a  felony  by  a  court  of  five 
justices  of  the  peace  and  not  by  a  jury.  The  court  com- 

*Compare  Act  of  March  3,   1866,    (p.  141,  App.  Globe,  1864-65.,)  w\tk 
that  of  July  16,  1866,  (pp.  866-867,  App.  Globe,  1865-66). 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6?  79 

posed  of  five  justices  of  the  peace  sustained  the  negro's 
counsel  in  his  appeal.5 

From  this  decision  and  similar  ones  it  is  seen  that, 
while  the  letter  of  the  law  remained  unchanged,  the  spirit 
of  the  times  had  swept  away  many  of  the  legal  discrimina 
tions  against  free  colored  men. 

In  the  same  county,  in  October,  1865,  a  justice  of  the 
peace  had  a  negro  deprived  of  a  fowling  piece,  on  the 
ground  that  the  statutes  of  Virginia  did  not  allow  negroes 
to  bear  arms.  A  provost  judge  revoked  this  action,  declar 
ing  negroes  had  "all  the  rights  of  whites  and  no  less."6 

There  was  on  the  part  of  the  whites  no  serious  effort  to 
enforce  most  of  the  old  "free  negro"  laws.  There  were  few 
attempts  to  disarm  freedmen  in  accordance  with  the  pro 
visions  af  the  Code.  General  Terry  was  petitioned  by  the 
whites  to  disarm  the  negroes  in  certain  sections  because 
they  were  threatening  to  make  an  insurrection  against  the 
whites.7  On  the  whole,  there  was  comparatively  little 
opposition  to  the  negroes'  owning  and  carrying  arms,  or  to 
their  conducting  themselves  as  free  men,  as  long  as  they 
were  not  "saucy"  or  "insolent"  to  the  whites. 

In  discussing  the  social  position  of  the  freedmen  in 
October,  1865,  the  Lynchburg  Virginian  says:  "His  social 
condition  is  not  so  much  changed  after  all.  The  negro  is 
the  laborer  and  menial  after  all.  He  now  collects  his  own 
wages  with  which  to  pay  his  own  rent,  clothing,  taxes  and 
doctor  bills.  In  other  respects,  his  relation  to  his  master 
has  undergone  very  little  alteration." 

February  28,  1866,  the  General  Assembly  passed  the 

5Lynchburg  Virginian,  September  14,  1865. 

6Lyuchburg  Virginian,  October  14, 1865.  Nevertheless  license  author 
izing  a  negro  to  perform  the  marriage  ceremony  was  refused  by  the  Court 
of  Hustings,  in  Richmond,  on  the  ground  that  there  was  no  law  for  grant 
ing  such  license.  Enquirer,  November  15,  1865. 

^General  Terry's  testimony  before  the  Reconstruction  Committee,  p. 
1834,  Globe  1865-66. 


80  Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6? 

folio  wing  act  in  regard  to  negroes  as  witnesses:8  "That 
colored  persons  and  Indians  shall,  if  otherwise  competent 
and  subject  to  the  rules  applicable  to  other  persons,  be 
admitted  as  witnesses  in  the  following  cases: 

ul.  In  all  civil  cases  and  proceedings,  at  law  and  in 
equity,  in  which  a  colored  person  or  an  Indian  is  a  party, 
or  may  be  directly  benefitted  or  injured  by  the  result. 

"2.  In  all  criminal  proceedings,  in  which  a  colored 
person  or  an  Indian  is  a  party,  or  which  arise  out  of  an 
injury  done  or  attempted  or  threatened  to  the  person, 
property  or  rights  of  a  colored  person  or  Indian,  or  in 
which  it  is  alleged  in  the  presentment,  information  or 
indictment,  or  in  which  the  court  is  of  opinion,  from  other 
evidence,  that  there  is  a  probable  cause  to  believe  that  the 
offense  was  committed  by  a  white  person,  in  conjunction  or 
co-operation  with  a  colored  person  or  Indian. 

1  <3.  The  testimony  of  colored  persons  shall,  in  all  cases 
and  proceedings,  both  at  law  and  in  equity,  be  given  ore 
tenus  and  not  by  deposition;  and  in  suits  in  equity,  and  in 
all  other  cases  in  which  the  deposition  of  the  witness  would 
regularly  be  part  of  the  record,  the  court  shall,  if  desired 
by  any  party,  or  if  deemed  proper  by  itself,  certify  the 
facts  proved  by  such  witness,  or  the  evidence  given  by  him, 
as  far  as  is  credited  by  the  court,  as  the  one  or  the  other 
may  be  proper  under  the  rules  of  law  applicable  to  the  case; 
and  such  certificate  shall  be  made  part  of  the  record.7 > 

Before  the  war  a  negro  or  an  Indian  was  a  competent 
witness  only  in  the  case  of  the  Commonwealth  for  or  against 
a  negro  or  an  Indian  or  in  civil  cases  to  which 
negroes  or  Indians  only  were  parties.9  This  new 
statute  of  Feb.  28,  1866,  declared  that  they  should  be 
heard  as  witnesses  in  any  and  all  suits  to  which  any  colored 
person  was  a  party  or  in  which  the  interest,  direct  or  indi- 

SActs  1865-66,  pp.  89-90. 
9Code  of  Virginia,  p.  724. 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6?  81 

rect,  of  a  colored  person  was  involved,  or  in  which  any 
crime  had  been  done  or  attempted  to  be  done  or  threatened 
to  the  person,  property,  or  rights  of  a  colored  person. 

At  the  time  of  the  passage  of  this  act  almost  all  the 
cases  involving  the  interests  of  colored  people,  or  crimes 
against  their  person,  property  or  rights  were  adjudicated  in 
the  Freedmen's  Court  or  in  other  judicial  tribunals  of  Fed 
eral  creation.  Before  these  courts  there  was  no  distinction 
of  witnesses  on  account  of  race  and  color.  These  courts 
from  the  first  recognized  that  the  negroes  were  entitled  to 
as  "full  and  equal  benefit  of  all  Jaws  and  proceedings  for 
the  security  of  person  and  property  as  is  enjoyed  by  white 
citizens,  and  are  subject  to  like  punishments,  pains  and 
penalties  and  to  none  other,  any  law,  statute,  ordinance, 
regulation  or  custom  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding." 

It  cannot  be  said  that  the  limitation  of  negroes  as  wit 
nesses  to  cases  directly  or  indirectly  concerning  the  interest 
or  welfare  of  some  colored  person  was  a  denial  of  any 
"right,"  since  the  power  to  "testify"  in  cases  in  which  the 
witness  is  not  a  party  interested  in  the  outcome  of  the  suit, 
cannot  be  claimed  as  a  right;  but  it  is  to  be  regarded  either  as 
a  privilege  conferred  by  the  community  on  the  would-be  wit 
ness,  or  as  a  duty  imposed  on  him  for  the  good  of  society. 
Yet  whatever  may  be  the  abstract  philosophy  of  the  matter 
it  was  in  fact  a  discrimination  against  negroes  to  limit  their 
testimony  to  particular  cases. 

While  the  General  Assembly  at  Eichmond  was  repeal 
ing  the  old  slave  code  and  trying  to  define  the  rights 
and  privileges  of  the  freedmen,  Congress  was  debating  the 
Civil  Eights  Bill,  which  was  passed  over  the  President's 
veto,  April  9,  1866.  This  bill  declared  "all  persons  born 
in  the  United  States  and  not  subject  to  any  foreign  power, 
except  Indians  not  taxed,"  citizens  of  the  United  States; 
and,  in  addition  to  the  right  to  testify  in  all  cases  on  the 
same  terms  as  whites,  it  conferred  on  the  negroes  about  all 
the  rights  enjoyed  by  white  men  except  the  right  to  sit  on 


82  Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6? 

juries,  to  vote,  and  to  hold  office.  It  also  provided  penal 
ties  for  any  attempt,  on  the  part  of  any  individual  or  any 
municipal  or  State  officer,  to  curtail  or  deny  these  rights.0 

The  effect  of  this  bill  was  very  far-reaching.  It  em 
boldened  the  negroes  to  demand  various  privileges  they 
had  not  yet  enjoyed.  As  a  single  instance  of  this  it  may 
be  well  to  mention  that,  for  about  one  year  after  the  close 
of  the  war,  it  was  unsettled  whether  negroes  had  the  right 
to  ride  on  public  street  cars.  After  the  passage  of  the 
Civil  Eights  Bill  the  negroes  toward  the  last  of  April,  1866, 
decided  to  test  their  right  to  ride  on  the  Eichmond  street 
cars.  This  led  to  some  riotous  demonstrations,  but  the 
president  of  the  road,  after  an  interview  with  General 
John  M.  Schofield,  the  military  commander  in  Virginia, 
determined  to  recognize  the  privilege.  Many  of  the  citi 
zens  were  dissatisfied  with  the  concession,  yet  peaceably 
acquiesced  in  it.1  For  some  time  the  cars  were  divided 
into  two  classes,  one  of  which,  indicated  by  a  white  ball, 
was  for  white  ladies  and  gentlemen  with  ladies,  the  other 
for  all  classes.  This  arrangement  continued  until  May, 
1867.2 

The  Legislature,  February  27,  1866,  passed  an  act 
declaring:  "All  laws  in  respect  to  crimes  and  punish 
ments,  and  in  respect  to  criminal  proceedings,  applicable 
to  white  persons,  shall  apply  in  like  manner  to  colored 
persons  and  to  Indians  unless  it  is  otherwise  specially  pro 
vided."3 

By  this  act  all  special  punishments  and  proceedings 
peculiar  to  negroes,  except  the  minor  discriminations 
against  negroes  previously  mentioned  in  connection  with 

opp.  315-316,  App.  Globe,  1865-66. 

1  American  Annual  Cyclopaedia,  1866,  p.  759. 

2Charlottesville  Chronicle,  May  4,  1867. 

A  colored  preacher  and  his  wife  were  ejected  from  the  cars  at  Rich' 
mond  in  September,  1867.    Lynchburg  Virginian,  Sept.  26,  1867, 
»Acts  1865-66,  p.  84. 


Negroes  and  Their  treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6?  83 

"the  repeal  of  the  slave  code,"  were  abolished.  Whites 
and  blacks  were  thenceforth  put  on  an  equality  before  the 
law  in  respect  to  crimes  and  punishments. 

The  Federal  military  authorities  in  the  State  soon 
after  the  passage  of  the  acts  of  February  27  and  28,  1866, 
transferred  to  the  civil  courts  full  jurisdiction  in  all  cases 
in  nearly  all  the  counties  of  the  State.4  In  a  few  places 
society  was  so  unsettled  and  the  conflicts  between  whites 
and  blacks  so  frequent  that  the  Federal  authorities  did  not 
feel  justified  in  closing  the  Provost  or  Freedmen's  courts. 
In  the  fall  of  1866,  General  Terry  reported  that  in  three 
counties  it  had  been  necessary  to  restore  Bureau  courts 
after  they  had  been  abolished.5  These  courts  remained  in 
York  County  until  the  close  of  1867. 6 

After  the  restoration  of  the  full  authority  of  the  civil 
tribunals  in  all  cases,  the  agents  of  the  Bureau  were 
required  by  the  order  of  the  Assistant  Commissioner  of  the 
Freedmen's  Bureau  in  Virginia  to  be  present  and  to  aid  the 
colored  litigants  by  their  counsel  and  advice  in  all  trials 
within  their  jurisdiction,  including  criminal  trials  or  pre 
liminary  hearings  before  justices  of  the  peace,  to  which  a 
colored  person  was  a  party.  It  was  the  duty  of  these 
agents  to  make  an  immediate  report  of  "any  instance  of 
oppression  or  injustice  against  a  colored  party,  whether 
prosecutor  or  defendant,  and  also  in  case  the  evidence  of  a 
colored  person  should  be  improperly  rejected  or  neglected." 
*  'They  were  also  required  to  examine  and  report  if  in  any 
instance  a  justice  of  the  peace,  attorney  for  the  common 
wealth,  grand  jury,  or  other  authority  refused  justice  to  a 
colored  person  by  improperly  neglecting  a  complaint  or 
declining  to  receive  an  oath  or  sworn  information  tendered 

*P.  671,  Messages  and  Documents  of  U.  8.  Government,  1866-67,  p.  663; 
Ibid,  p.  65 ;  House  Document  No.  120,  1st  Session  39th  Congress. 

5P.  671,  Messages  and  Documents  of  U.  S.  Government,  1866-67. 
«P.  664,  Messages  and  Documents  of  U.  8.  Government,  1867-68. 


84  Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-67 

by  such  a  person  whereby  a  trial  or  prosecution  might  be 
prevented  through  partiality  or  prejudice." 

After  the  passage  of  the  act  of  February  28,  1866, 
negroes  were  in  some  instances  denied  the  right  to  testify 
in  cases  in  which  they  were  interested.  A  flagrant  example 
of  such  denial  was  reported  of  the  York  County  Court  at 
its  session  held  May  19,  1866.  The  proceedings  of  this 
court  were  reported  by  the  Freedmen's  agent,  but  it  does 
not  appear  that  either  the  Federal  or  State  authorities  took 
any  steps  to  punish  the  offenders.7 

In  the  Circuit  Court  of  Alexandria  Judge  Thomas,  in 
1866,  decided  in  a  case  in  which  it  was  attempted  to  intro 
duce  colored  testimony,  that  such  testimony  was  inadmis 
sible  and  that  congressional  action  could  not  make  it  admis 
sible,  since  the  State  had  a  right  to  decide  who  were  com 
petent  to  testify  and  had  decided  that  colored  testimony 
was  not  admissible  in  civil  suits  to  which  white  men  alone 
were  parties.  This  decision  of  Judge  Thomas  was  accord 
ing  to  the  law  of  Virginia  as  laid  down  in  the  Act  of  Feb 
ruary  28,  1866,  in  regard  to  negroes  as  witnesses,  but  it 
was  declared  to  be  an  infringement  of  the  Civil  Eights  Bill. 
The  case  was  therefore  removed  to  the  United  States  Dis 
trict  Court.8 

A  little  later  five  magistrates  of  the  Corporation  Court 
of  Norfolk  refused  to  receive  the  testimony  of  a  negro.  A 
process  was  issued  under  the  Civil  Eights  Bill  in  accord 
ance  with  which  the  offending  officials  were  arrested  and 
held  to  bail  to  appear  at  the  following  term  of  the  United 
States  District  Court.9 

It  does  not  appear  that  there  were  many  attempts  in 
Virginia  to  infringe  the  Civil  Eights  Bill  in  form,  though 
it  was  often  infringed  in  spirit,  the  two  cases  above  men- 

TFp.  46-47,  House  Document  No.  120,  1st  Session  39th  Congress, 
»P.  765,  American  Annual  Cyclopaedia,  1866. 
»P.  759,  American  Annual  Cyclopaedia,  1867, 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-67  86 

tioned  being  the  most  prominent  instances  of  its  formal 
infringement. 

The  Civil  Eights  Bill  and  the  new  Freedmen's  Bureau 
Bill  passed  July  16,  1 866,  encouraged  the  negroes  in  their 
demands  for  equal  rights  with  the  whites.  They  were 
therefore  not  content  with  the  Act  of  February  28,  1866, 
allowing  them  to  testify  in  all  cases  in  which  a  negro  was 
in  any  way  interested. 

April  20,  1867,  the  Legislature  of  Virginia  passed  the 
following  act  in  regard  to  negroes  as  witnesses:0 

1  <1.  Be  it  enacted  by  the  General  Assembly  of  Virginia, 
That  the  act  passed  February  28,  1866,  entitled  an  act  in 
relation  to  the  testimony  of  colored  persons;  and  the 
twentieth  section  of  chapter  one  hundred  and  seventy-six 
of  the  Code  of  1860,  concerning  the  competency  of  wit 
nesses,  be  and  the  same  are  hereby  repealed. 

'  '2.  Be  it  further  enacted,  That  hereafter  colored  per 
sons  shall  be  competent  to  testify  in  this  State  as  if  they 
were  white." 

This  act  declared  colored  persons  competent  to  testify 
"as  if  they  were  white."  The  partisans  of  the  freedmen 
declared  that  this  concession  was  not  made  from  an  enlarged 
sense  of  duty  to  the  negro,  but  was  the  result  of  external 
pressure  in  his  behalf. 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  motive  of  the  Legisla 
ture,  this  act  came  too  late  to  be  of  any  practical  value. 
Seven  weeks  before  its  enactment,  Virginia  had,  by  the 
passage  of  the  Eeconstruction  Bill  of  March  2,  1867,  been 
reduced  to  a  military  district,  and  placed  under  the  con 
trol  of  a  Major-General  of  the  United  States  army. 

The  State  authorities  had,  in  the  spring  of  1867,  con 
ceded  to  the  negroes  freedom,  religious  liberty,  the  security 
of  property  and  person,  trial  by  jury,  and  the  right  to 
testify  and  to  hold  land.  They  also  enjoyed  the  rights  of 

OActs  1866-67,  p.  860. 


86  Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6? 

assembly  and  petition,  of  freedom  of  speech  and  the  press, 
and  of  owning  and  bearing  arms.  They  were  therefore  in 
possession  of  almost  all  the  rights  enjoyed  by  whites, 
except  the  privilege  of  serving  on  juries,  voting,  and  hold 
ing  office. 


CHAPTEE  XL 
ENFRANCHISEMENT  OF  THE  FREEDMEN. 

The  constitution  formed  by  the  "restored  govern 
ment77  of  Virginia  at  Alexandria  in  April,  1864,  limited 
suffrage  to  u white  male  citizens  of  the  commonwealth.77 
The  pressure  of  the  events  of  the  war  and  the  political 
sympathy  of  the  government  at  Alexandria  had  not  been 
sufficiently  strong  to  prompt  Governor  Pierpont  and  his 
Constitutional  Convention  to  enfranchise  the  negro.1  It 
was  therefore  not  to  be  expected  that  the  great  mass  of  the 
people  of  Virginia,  who  felt  they  had  nothing  to  gain  and 
much  to  lose  by  such  a  step,  would  consent  to  put  the  bal 
lot  in  his  hands. 

It  was  generally  felt  that  it  was  necessary  to  confer  on 
the  freedmen  all  the  civil  lights  and  the  political  rights 
enjoyed  by  women  and  minors;  but  that  was  as  much  as  the 
whites  were  willing  to  concede.  Meetings  were  held 
throughout  the  State  accepting  emancipation,  but  protest 
ing  against  the  enfranchisement  of  the  negroes.2  The  rep 
resentative  candidates  for  office  were  agreed  that  Virginia 

^or  account  of  the  Constitution  of  Virginia  and  the  Pierpont  Legis 
lation  at  Richmond  in  June,  1865,  see  Globe  1865-66,  pp.  1633-34. 

^Richmond  Times,  August  22,  1865. 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6?  87 

was  a  " white  man's"  government.  Mr.  Johnson,  one  of 
the  most  prominent  candidates  for  Congress  in  the  Lynch- 
burg  district,  declared  that  he  " would  keep  Virginia  out 
of  the  Union  (unrepresented  at  Washington)  forty  years 
rather  than  tolerate  negro  suffrage."3  The  General  Assem 
bly  of  "restored  Virginia"  was  in  session  in  Richmond 
June  19-23,  1865.  Speaker  Downey,  addressing  the  Legis 
lature  just  before  adjournment,  said:  " Whatever  they 
may  do  to  other  states,  thank  God,  they  cannot  saddle 
negro  suffrage  upon  us." 

The  press  of  the  State  almost  universally  opposed 
negro  suffrage.4  The  Eichmond  Times,  June  21,  1865, 
says:  "The  former  masters  of  the  negroes  in  Virginia 
have  no  feeling  of  unkindness  toward  them,  and  they  will 
give  them  all  the  encouragement  they  deserve,  but  they 
will  not  permit  them  to  exercise  the  right  of  suffrage,  nor 
will  they  treat  them  as  anything  but  'free  negroes.'  They 
are  laborers  who  are  to  be  paid  for  their  services  and  pro 
tected  as  are  unnaturalized  foreigners,  infants  and  women, 
but  vote  they  shall  not."  The  Enquirer,  January  25,  1866, 
opposes  negro  suffrage,  "miscegenation,  and  negro  equal 
ity,"  and  declares  that  it  does  not  like  a  plan  by  which 
"the  vote  of  a  white  man  can  be  killed  by  that  of  a  negro." 
March  24th  of  the  same  year  it  opposes  negro  suffrage  under 
any  condition. 

The  Whig,  December  24,  1866,  predicts  enfranchise 
ment  of  the  negroes,  and  urges  the  whites  to  make  the 
negroes  their  friends.  A  week  later  it  says  that  the  enfran 
chisement  of  the  blacks  will  only  add  to  the  Southern  repre 
sentation  in  Congress  if  the  whites  are  prudent  and  wise. 
This  newspaper  consistently  opposed  negro  suffrage,  but 
urged  the  whites  to  keep  the  negroes  from  falling  under 

3Lynchburg  Virginian,  September  14,  1865. 

*Times,  June  21,  1865;  Enquirer,  June  25,  1865,  October  15,  1865,  Octo 
ber  25,  1866;  Whig,  January  25,  1866,  December  24,  31,  1866;  Dispatch, 
January  8,  1867. 


88  Negroes  and  Their  treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6? 

the  influence  of  "scalawags"  and  * 'carpetbaggers,7'  if  they 
should  be  enfranchised  by  congressional  act. 

In  February,  1867,  the  Lynchburg  Eepublican  main 
tains  that  ultimately  the  ballot  must  be  given  to  respecta 
ble  and  worthy  negroes,  and  suggests  that  those  paying 
taxes  on  two  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  worth  of  property 
be  enfranchised.  By  this  qualified  suffrage,  it  was  said, 
the  State  might  escape  unqualified  suffrage,  which  the 
Jacobins  in  Congress  were  threatening  to  impose. 

The  enfranchisement  of  the  negroes  began  to  be  dis 
cussed  shortly  after  the  war.  In  June,  1865,  a  Eepublican 
organization  formed  at  Alexandria  resolved,  amongst  other 
things,  "that  the  Constitution  of  Virginia  should  be 
amended  so  as  to  confer  suffrage  upon,  and  restrict  it  to, 
loyal  male  citizens  without  regard  to  color."6  This  was  the 
first  time  the  Eepublican  party  committed  itself  to  negro 
suffrage  in  Virginia,  but  unqualified  negro  suffrage  was 
not  yet  advocated.  A  meeting  of  the  radical  Union  men 
of  Frederick  county,  at  Winchester,  June  28,  1865,  opposed 
the  entire  exclusion  of  the  colored  race  from  the  ballot  box. 

A  negro  meeting  in  Petersburg,  June  7, 1865,  resolved, 
"That  representation  and  taxation  go  hand  in  hand,  and  it 
is  diametrically  opposed  to  republican  institutions  to  tax 
us  for  the  support  and  expense  of  the  government  and 
deny  us,  at  the  same  time,  the  right  of  representation."6 

In  November,  1865,  a  convention  of  colored  men  met 
at  Alexandria,  severely  arraigned  the  whites  of  the  State 
and  the  Pierpont  government  which  had  been  transferred 
from  Alexandria  to  Eichmond  in  the  early  summer  of  1865, 
and  asserted  their  purpose  to  claim  all  the  rights  of  white 
men,  including  the  franchise.7 

May  17,  1866,  the  "Unconditional  Union  Convention" 

^Republic,  June  19, 1865. 
^Republic,  June  10, 1865. 
fLynchburg  Virginian,  Nov.  12,  1865. 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-67  89 

met  at  Alexandria.  About  sixty  delegates  representing 
seventeen  counties  were  present.  Many  of  them  were  self- 
appointed.  John  Minor  Botts,  a  prominent  and  influential 
old  time  Whig,  presided.  After  much  debate,  a  resolution 
favoring  qualified  suffrage  for  both  races  was  adopted. 
Botts  opposed  negro  suffrage,  but  would  have  voted  for  it 
if  he  had  believed  the  people  of  Virginia  would  sanction  it.8 

In  the  radical  convention  held  in  Philadelphia,  Sep 
tember,  1866,  Botts  vigorously  opposed  universal  manhood 
suffrage.  The  other  delegates  from  Virginia  favored  it. 
Eev.  James  W.  Hunnicutt,  a  delegate  from  Virginia  who 
afterwards  achieved  notoriety  as  a  leader  of  the  radicals 
and  negroes,  favored  the  enfranchisement  of  all  men  except 
"rebels."  The  convention  adopted  a  report  favoring 
"manhood  suffrage."  Thereafter  the  Republican  party 
was  committed  to  unqualified  negro  suffrage. 

Various  motives  influenced  the  advocates  of  negro 
enfranchisement.  Many  of  the  radicals  were  sincere  in 
their  efforts,  believing  that  the  ballot  only  would  protect 
the  late  slaves  and  fit  them  for  the  responsibilities  of  citi 
zenship.  Many  white  agitators  were  seeking  their  own 
advancement  through  the  black  voters.  Others  wished  to 
avenge  themselves  upon  the  former  ruling  class.  The 
negroes  themselves  came  to  believe  that  freedom  without 
the  privilege  of  voting  and  holding  office  was  a  failure. 

The  hostility  to  negro  suffrage  was  not  perceptibly 
mitigated  during  the  year  1866.  February  16,  1867,  the 
Charlottesville  Chronicle,  one  of  the  most  careful  and  con 
servative  papers  of  the  State  in  all  its  editorials,  said: 
"The  people  of  Virginia  prefer  military  law — very  harsh 
est  military  law,  yes  even  Tiberius  himself"  rather  than 
the  negro  suffrage  laws  then  being  discussed  by  Congress. 

The  Legislature  in  a  joint  resolution,  February  6,  1866, 
declared:  "That  Virginia  will  not  voluntarily  change  the 

SEnquirer,  May  22,  1866.    American  Annual  Cyclopaedia,  1866,  p.  766. 


90  Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6? 

adjustment  of  political  power  as  fixed  by  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States.'79  February  9,  1865,  the  "restored 
government1'  of  Viginia  at  Alexandria  had  promptly  rati 
fied  the  thirteenth  amendment  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.0  A  really  representative  Legislature  of  all 
Virginia  had  by  their  resolutions  of  February  6,  1866, 
accepted  the  abolition  of  slavery  as  an  accomplished  fact.0 
The  Constitution  as  amended  by  the  legislative  ordinance 
of  February  24,  1866,  limited  suffrage  to  the  white  male 
citizens  of  the  Commonwealth  of  the  age  of  twenty -one 
years.1  The  Legislature  on  January  9,  1867,  unanimously 
in  the  Senate,  and  with  one  dissenting  vote  in  the  House, 
refused  to  ratify  the  fourteenth  amendment.2  These  votes 
of  the  Legislature  on  the  different  phases  of  the  negro  ques 
tion  indicate  very  accurately  the  prevailing  sentiment  in 
Virginia. 

The  white  people  of  Virginia  were  in  the  spring  of 
1867  almost  unanimously  opposed  to  "immediate  universal 
manhood  suffrage, "  which  was  thrust  upon  the  State  by 
the  congressional  Eeconstruction  Acts.3  They  never  be 
came  reconciled  to  unqualified  negro  suffrage,  and  by  the 
Constitution  of  1902  practically  disfranchised  most  of  the 
blacks. 

In  Congress  it  was  frankly  avowed  that  the  purpose  of 
enfranchising  the  negroes  was  to  secure  the  perpetual 
ascendency  of  the  Republican  party  in  the  nation  through 
the  support  of  these  black  allies.4  If  there  had  appeared 

9  Acts,  1865-66,  p.  449. 

°Acts  (Alexandria)  1865,  p.  30. 

°Acts  1865-66,  p.  449. 

lActs  1865-66,  p.  226. 

2 Acts  1866-67,  p.  508;  Whig,  January  10,  1867;  Waddell,  History  of 
Augusta  County,  p.  346. 

3Prospectus  Richmond  Daily  Examiner  November  30,  1866;  App. 
Globe  1866-67,  p.  146. 

<Mr.  Boyer's  speech,  Globe  1865-66,  p.  2466. 


Negroes  and  Iheir  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-67  91 

any  probability  at  that  time  that  the  negroes  would  vote  the 
Democratic  ticket  few  will  dare  say  that  devotion  to  the 
principles  of  universal  equality  would  have  induced  the 
Eepublican  majority  in  Congress  to  put  the  ballot  in  the 
hands  of  the  freedmen. 


CHAPTEE  XII. 
EDUCATION  OF  THE  NEGROES  FROM  1865  TO  1867. 

The  statute  making  it  unlawful  for  negroes  on  any 
condition  to  assemble  for  instruction  in  reading  and  writing 
and  for  religious  worship  conducted  by  a  negro  without  the 
presence  of  a  white  person  was  not  repealed  until  Feb.  27, 
1866 ;  yet  they  assembled  as  freely  as  whites,  both  in 
schools  and  religious  meetings,  for  more  than  ten  months 
after  the  close  of  the  war,  until  by  action  of  the  General 
Assembly  all  restraints  of  this  character  were  removed. 

Many  of  the  most  thoughtful  men  in  the  State  urged 
that  the  late  slaves  should  be  encouraged  and  assisted  to 
secure  as  thorough  an  education  as  they  were  capable  of 
receiving.5  They  favored  the  education  of  the  negroes  as  a 
matter  of  justice,  since  it  was  unfair  to  them  to  turn  them 
loose  as  freemen  to  win  their  own  support  and  to  compete 
with  white  men  without  giving  them  an  opportunity  to  fit 
themselves  for  the  struggle.  They  also  felt  that  the  blacks,  as 
ignorant  and  unskilled  free  men,  would  prove  a  serious 
burden  and  a  positive  danger  to  the  State.  The  press  of 

^General  Howard's  Report,   p.  672,  Messages  and  Documents  of  U.  8. 
Government,  1866-67;  General  Terry's  Report,  pp.  1833-34,  Globe  1865-66. 


92  Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6? 

the  State  generally  advocated  an  earnest  effort  to  educate 
and  elevate  them.6 

Many  others  of  the  most  thoughtful  class  felt  that  the 
blacks  should  be  aided  and  encouraged  in  getting  only  such 
school  training  as  would  be  useful  to  them  as  private  per 
sons  and  would  enable  them  to  pursue  with  success  the 
common  forms  of  labor  and  the  trades  to  which  they  as 
slaves  had  been  accustomed  and  to  which  they  would  of 
necessity  confine  themselves  in  the  future.  It  was  gen 
erally  felt  that  they  would  not  be  called  on  to  serve  the 
State  in  a  political  capacity,  and  it  did  not  seem  probable 
that  they  would  for  many  years  be  able  to  earn  a  living  in 
the  professions.7 

A  large  number  of  the  people  during  the  first  two 
years  following  the  war  were  either  indifferent  to  educating 
the  negro  in  any  form  or  were  positively  opposed  to  it. 
Many  of  the  more  ignorant  and  illiterate  whites  were  not 
pleased  with  the  idea  of  educating  and  elevating  the  freed- 
men.8  Slavery,  which  had  formerly  clearly  distinguished 
the  condition  of  the  poor  whites  from  that  of  the  blacks, 
had  been  swept  away.  They  now  saw  the  negroes  free  and 
aspiring  to  all  the  civil  and  political  rights  of  the  whites. 
Naturally  they  did  not  relish  the  idea  of  becoming  the 
rivals  of  the  negroes  whom  they  despised  as  an  inferior 
race,  and  by  whom  they  were  in  turn  despised  as  "poor 
white  trash. "  This  class  of  whites  now  felt  that  it  was 
more  important  than  ever  before  to  keep  the  blacks  sharply 
distinguished  from  the  whites  by  artificial  as  well  as  racial 


^Editorial  Lynchburg  Virginian,  October  22,  1865;  Whig,  August 
20,  1866. 

7This  was  the  general  feeling  throughout  the  State.  See  the  news 
papers  of  the  time. 

^General  Terry's  Report,  pp.  1833-1834,  Globe  1865-66;  General  How 
ard's  Report,  p.  655,  Messages  and  Documents  of  U.  S.  Government, 
1866-67.  Only  the  lowest  class  of  the  whites  opposed  all  forms  of  negro 
education  and  advancement. 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-67  93 

barriers.  They  were  therefore  opposed  to  giving  them  train 
ing  and  culture  that  would  render  them  rivals  in  the 
trades  and  would  tend  to  obliterate  the  distinctions  between 
the  two  races. 

As  early  as  October,  1861,  the  American  Missionary 
Association  had  opened  schools  for  negroes  at  Fortress 
Monroe.9  As  the  war  progressed  interest  in  their  educa 
tion  increased  in  the  North.  Various  societies,  philan 
thropic  and  religious,  began  to  raise  money  to  send  teach 
ers  to  the  South.  These  teachers  appeared  in  Virginia  in 
considerable  numbers  in  the  summer  of  1865.  The  Freed  - 
men's  Bureau  generally  furnished  only  the  buildings  and 
the  material  equipment.  The  teachers  were  paid  from 
funds  collected  in  the  North  by  the  various  societies.0 
Schools  were  opened  in  which  nearly  all  the  teachers  were 
white,  many  of  them  being  women  from  New  England. 
During  the  period  from  1865  to  1867  a  considerable  num 
ber  of  negroes  began  to  teach  in  these  schools,  yet  the  num 
ber  of  white  teachers  in  the  colored  schools  was  always 
about  two-thirds  of  the  whole  teaching  force.1  By  the  close 
of  the  year  1865  there  were  in  Virginia,  mainly  in  the 
southeastern  part  of  the  State,  ninety  schools,  one  hundred 
and  ninety-five  teachers,  and  eleven  thousand  five  hundred 
pupils.2  By  the  close  of  1866  the  number  of  schools  and 
students  had  considerably  increased.8 

The  officers  of  the  Freedmen's  Bureau  from  time  to 
time  reported  that  the  feeling  in  regard  to  the  necessity  of 
educating  the  freedmen  grew  stronger  each  year.  General 
Howard,  in  his  report  at  the  close  of  the  year  1866,  says 

9P.  116,  Virginia  School  Report  1871. 

°For   an  excellent  account  of  the  work  of  these  schools  from  1861  to 
1870,  see  pp.  115-118  of  Virginia  School  Report  1870. 

i  American  Annual  Cyclopaedia  1867,  p.  323. 
2American  Annual  Cyclopaedia,  1865,  pp.  376-77. 

^American  Annual  Cyclopaedia,  1866,  p.  337.    There  were  more  than 
14,000  pupils  in  Freedmen's  schools,  January  1,  1867. 


94  Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6? 

there  had  been  a  noticeable  change  of  sentiment  in  regard 
to  negro  schools  since  the  war.  Leading  statesmen  were 
urging  the  people  to  educate  the  negroes;  religious  conven 
tions  had  passed  resolutions  urging  upon  their  members 
the  importance  of  giving  them  instruction.4 

There  was  still  some  opposition  to  these  schools  by  the 
whites.  The  Bureau  officers  constantly  complained  that 
the  more  ignorant  element  of  the  population  continued 
their  opposition  to  the  enlightenment  of  the  negro,  and  it 
seems  that  their  complaints  were  well  founded.  Yet  much 
of  the  ill  feeling  toward  the  colored  schools  was  due  not  so 
much  to  an  unwillingness  to  have  the  blacks  educated  as  to 
the  manner  in  which  it  was  being  done  and  to  the  persons 
by  whom  these  schools  were  conducted.6  As  has  been  men 
tioned  elsewhere,  a  very  large  part  of  these  teachers  were 
imbued  with  the  radical  abolition  ideas  of  the  North.  They 
believed  in  equality  of  rights  and  privileges  for  all  races 
and  colors,  and  encouraged  a  certain  freedom  of  manner 
towards  the  whites  which  the  whites  were  not  prepared  to 
tolerate  from  the  blacks.  In  a  short  time  the  negroes  fell 
in  a  large  degree  under  the  influence  of  the  teachers.  All 
this  displeased  the  whites,  who  felt  that  the  negroes  were 
being  led  to  expect  too  much  in  a  social  way,  and  were,  at 
the  same  time,  being  alienated  from  their  old  friends  and 
masters. 

Another  phase  of  this  educational  work  that  did  much 
to  disincline  conservative  citizens  to  encourage  these  out 
side  teachers  was  that  they  were  directing  their  efforts,  in 
a  very  large  degree,  to  preparing  the  freedmen  to  ask  full 
political  privileges.  The  prejudices  engendered  by  two 
hundred  and  fifty  years'  acquaintance  with  the  negro  as  a 

4P.  655,  Messages  and  Documents  of  thelJ.  S. Government,  1866-67;  also 
p.  666,  Messages  and  Documents  of  the  U.  S.  Government,  1867-68. 

SLynchburg  Virginian,  October  22,  1865;  Whig,  August  20,  1866;  Gen 
eral  Terry's  Report,  Globe  1865-66,  pp.  1833-34;  General  Howard's  Report. 
Messages  and  Documents  of  U.  S.  Government,  1866-67,  p.  655. 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-67  95 

servile  race  would  not  allow  the  Virginians  to  grant  this 
without  a  struggle.  Yet  in  some  of  the  towns  the  citizens 
from  the  first  expressed  a  willingness  to  co-operate  with  the 
agents  oi  the  Freedmen's  Bureau  and  the  Northern  philan 
thropic  societies.  Where  such  a  feeling  prevailed,  the 
schools  were  soon  turned  over  to  the  local  municipal 
authorities  with  the  understanding  that  these  schools  should 
continue  for  a  stipulated  time  to  receive  the  support  from 
the  philanthropic  societies  which  had  been  given  the 
schools  before  the  assumption  of  their  control  by  the  city. 
Such  was  the  case  with  the  city  of  Lynchburg.7 

It  was  freely  charged  by  some  of  these  teachers  that 
the  negro  school  buildings  had  been  burned  by  the  whites. 
The  very  small  number  of  houses  destroyed  and  the  absence 
of  evidence  to  implicate  the  whites  renders  it  highly  proba 
ble  that  scarcely  a  single  building  was  destroyed  by  a  white 
incendiary  during  that  period.8 

In  summing  up  the  attitude  of  the  whites  toward  ne 
gro  education,  toward  the  teachers,  and  in  regard  to  rent 
ing  houses,  General  Terry  says:  "In  some  places  the  peo 
ple  cordially  approve  it  (the  education  of  the  freedmen). 
Many  have  taken  part  in  it.  In  other  places  the  reverse  is 
the  case — some  persons  coming  to  teach  the  negroes  have 
not  been  permitted  to  rent  a  place,  either  for  school  or  per 
sonal  occupation,  and  it  has  been  reported  to  me  that 
teachers  sent  to  teach  the  blacks  have  been  treated  with 
great  contempt  and  in  some  places  threatened."9 

Many  of  the  worthy  teachers  were  misunderstood  by 
the  white  people  amongst  whom  they  had  come  to  labor. 
They  therefore  were  not  welcome  from  reasons  before  men 
tioned.  Others  of  these  teachers  without  tact  and  some- 

7Gen.  Terry's  Report,  Globe  1865-66,  pp.  1833-34. 

sp.  46,  House  Document  No.  120,  1st  Ses.  39th  Congress;  p.  278,  Ku 
Klux  Conspiracy,  2d  Session  42d  Congress,  1872. 

9Globe  1865-66,  pp.  1833-84. 


96  Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6? 

times  without  character  became  involved  in  difficulties  with 
the  whites  of  the  community.  Generally  these  brawls  were 
not  traced  to  their  true  origin,  but  were  reported  by  the 
teachers  and  agents  of  the  Bureau  as  marks  of  hostility  to 
the  education  and  elevation  of  the  late  slaves.  Owing  to 
the  agitation  of  the  public  mind,  the  most  insignificant  dis 
turbance  was  magnified  into  a  riot.  These  outrages  were 
the  capital  of  the  "scalawag,"  the  "carpetbagger"  and  the 
turbulent  negro  politician  on  the  one  side;  on  the  other 
side,  some  of  the  whites  industriously  spread  abroad  reports 
of  the  wildest  plans  and  wrong-doing  of  the  freedmen  and 
their  partisans.  Chagrin  at  defeat,  hatred  toward  the  con 
querors,  hostility  to  the  proposed  new  status  of  the  negro, 
and  opposition  to  the  form  and  spirit  of  the  education 
being  given  the  freedmen,  disqualified,  in  a  large  measure, 
the  whites  from  correctly  estimating  the  teachers  and  the 
schools.  On  the  other  hand  the  Bureau  agents  and  teach 
ers  interpreted  any  opposition  to  the  teachers  or  their 
methods  as  hostility  to  any  form  of  education  for  negroes. 

It  is  therefore  very  difficult  to  determine  what  part  of 
the  whites  were  in  principle  opposed  to  negro  education; 
yet  it  is  certain  that  a  considerable  element,  generally  of 
the  more  ignorant  class,  was  unwilling  to  see  the  negroes 
educated  or  elevated  in  any  way. 

The  State  Legislature  in  its  session  of  1865-66  and  of 
1866-67  made  no  new  provision  for  the  education  of  either 
whites  or  blacks.  The  State  was  so  impoverished  by  the 
war  that  it  could  hardly  be  expected  to  attempt  the  inaugu 
ration  of  a  public  free  school  system  for  either  race  at  that 
time.  It  is,  of  course,  impossible  to  affirm  positively  just 
what  would  have  been  the  policy  of  the  whites  in  regard  to 
negro  education  if  they  had  been  left  to  solve  this  problem. 
The  fact  that  the  Legislature  in  an  act  concerning  appren 
tices,  passed  January  30,  1866,  provided  that  every  minor 
bound  an  apprentice  should  be  taught  not  only  some  busi 
ness  or  trade,  but  also,  "reading,  writing  and  common 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6?  97 

arithmetic  including  the  rule  of  three, "  indicates  clearly 
that  the  Legislature  intended  that  in  the  future  there 
should  be  no  difference  between  the  education  given  a 
white  and  black  apprentice.0  By  this  act  the  fifth  section 
of  chapter  one  hundred  and  twenty -seven  of  the  Code  of 
1860  was  so  amended  as  to  put  all  apprentices,  regardless 
of  color,  on  absolutely  the  same  footing  in  regard  to  educa 
tion  as  in  all  other  respects. 

The  passage  of  the  Reconstruction  Acts  of  1867  took 
this  matter  out  of  the  hands  of  the  whites.  Most  of  the 
thoughtful  people  had  felt  from  the  close  of  the  war  that 
some  form  of  education  was  necessary  to  enable  the  freed- 
men  to  take  their  new  places  in  society.  This  feeling  was 
constantly  growing  amongst  all  classes.  It  is,  therefore, 
probable  that  liberal  provisions  would  soon  have  been  made 
by  the  Legislature  for  their  education. 


CHAPTEE   XIII. 
APPRENTICE  LAWS  IN  VIRGINIA. 

It  has  been  shown  how  completely  society  was  revolu 
tionized  and  the  home  life  of  the  negroes  broken  up  by  the 
war.  Thousands  of  negroes  had  deserted  their  children. 
Many  young  negroes,  imitating  their  elders,  refused  work 
as  unbecoming  freemen,  and  lived  by  begging  and  stealing. 
Many  white  parents  had  died  leaving  their  children  home 
less  and  friendless.  There  was  during  the  years  of  1865 
and  1866  a  larger  number  of  homeless,  idle  children  in  Vir 
ginia  than  at  any  other  period  in  her  history.  These  young 

"Acts  1865-66,  p.  86. 


98  Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-67 

people  were  growing  up  in  want  and  vice.  Most  of  them, 
with  no  regular  labor,  were  coming  to  manhood  and  woman 
hood  without  any  trade  or  any  disposition  to  support  them 
selves.  For  several  years  after  the  war  many  young 
negroes  were  fed,  clothed,  and  sheltered  by  the  Freedmen's 
Bureau  and  the  army  around  whose  headquarters  great 
throngs  were  congregated  in  idleness. 

The  army  officers  repeatedly  urged  the  people  of  Vir 
ginia  to  adopt  some  fair  system  of  apprenticeship.  May 
5,  1865,  General  Halleck  declared  that,  "For  minors,  not 
cared  for  by  their  parents,  apprentice  system  will  be  intro 
duced  as  early  as  practicable. ' ?  l  The  press  of  the  State  and 
the  array  officers  considered  the  proper  education  and  train 
ing  of  orphans  and  homeless  minors  one  of  the  most  serious 
questions  before  the  people.2  The  army  officers  and  Freed - 
men's  Bureau  agents  feared  that  the  people  of  Virginia 
would  devise  some  apprentice  system  by  which  they  would 
receive  the  benefits  of  slavery  without  its  form.  This  lack 
of  confidence  in  the  sincerity  of  the  people  in  dealing  fairly 
with  the  negroes  rendered  more  difficult  the  efforts  to  find 
homes  and  employment  for  the  young  negroes.  July  15, 
1865,  Gen.  O.  O.  Howard  issued  orders  to  the  agents  of 
the  Freedmen's  Bureau  that  they  should  supervise  the  con 
tracts  of  freedmen,  but  in  no  instance  should  "apprentice 
ship  or  any  substitute  for  slavery"  be  allowed.3  This  order 
was  intended  to  prohibit  only  abuses  of  the  apprentice  sys 
tem  by  which  a  person  might  conceivably  be  enslaved  for  a 
number  of  years;  yet  it,  in  its  actual  influence,  discouraged 
all  attempts  to  apprentice  minors  even  on  the  most  liberal 
terms. 

!P.  1091,  Serial  97,  Official  Records  of  the  War  of  the  Rebellion. 

2Lynchburg  Virginian,  November  4,  1865;  Richmond  Times,  May  15, 
August  19,  1865;  p.  1216  Serial  97,  Official  Records.  General  Howard, 
Commissioner  of  the  Freedmen's  Bureau,  ordered  that,  "State  laws  with 
regard  to  apprenticeship  will  be  recognized  by  this  Bureau,  provided  they 
make  no  distinction  of  color."  Whig,  October  6,  1865. 

3See  General  Howard's  Order,  Richmond  Times,  July  15,  X805., 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment™  Virginia,  1865-6?  99 

In  some  of  the  "Cotton  States"  during  the  summer  of 
1865,  there  was  some  talk  of  the  '  'gradual  emancipation" 
plan  and  an  "apprentice''  plan,  the  purpose  of  which  was 
to  mitigate  the  bad  effects  of  "immediate  emancipation"  of 
all  the  slaves.  These  plans  never  found  any  support  in 
Virginia.  The  Eichmond  Times  of  May  15,  1865,  discuss 
ing  them,  says,  "The  edifice  of  our  future  greatness  can 
be  built  on  free  labor,  and  Virginia  has  something  better  in 
store  for  her  than  to  play  the  dry  nurse  for  two  or  three 
hundred  thousand  negroes  for  the  next  half  century." 

Nevertheless  it  was  realized  by  all  that  something  had 
to  be  done  to  teach  the  throngs  of  idle  young  negroes  hab 
its  of  industry  and  force  them  to  earn  their  bread.  Novem 
ber  4,  1865,  the  Lyuchburg  Virginian  says,  "Apprentice 
ship  to  prevent  young  negroes  from  growing  up  in  idleness 
and  vagrancy  should  be  a  settled  policy  to  be  regulated 
upon  some  system  of  justice  and  fair  dealings  between  both 
parties."  It  was  generally  felt  that  the  two  most  important 
questions  that  would  come  before  the  Legislature  to  meet  in 
December,  1865,  would  be  the  vagrant  and  minor  negro 
questions. 

The  Code  of  1860  provided  for  "binding  out"  or  * 'ap 
prenticing  minors  under  certain  conditions."4  It  may  be 
well  to  remark  that  nearly  all  the  apprentices  prior  to  1860 
were  white,  as  there  was  in  the  whole  State  only  a  com 
paratively  small  number  of  free  negroes.  The  word 
"master"  as  used  in  the  statute  of  1860  ^as  not  under 
stood  to  imply  any  ownership  of  the  "apprentice"  or 
"bound  person,"  but  was  a  survival  from  the  time  when 
all  men  who  held  "apprentices"  or  "bound  persons"  were 
masters  of  the  trade  or  calling  which  the  apprentice  was  to 
be  taught.  It  has  been  said  that  the  use  of  the  word 
"master"  in  the  statutes  of  1866  in  regard  to  apprentices 
indicates  a  purpose  on  the  part  of  the  Legislature  to  place 

<Code  of  Virginia,  pp.  585-587. 


100         Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6? 

the  "bound  person"  in  the  relation  of  a  slave  to  his  em 
ployer.  Such  is  not  the  case,  for  in  every  instance  in 
which  the  word  *  'master'  >  occurs  in  the  Acts  of  1866  and 
1867  it  is  taken  from  the  Code  of  1860,  which  was  enacted 
to  regulate  the  relation  of  "master'7  and  "apprentice" 
when  almost  all  the  apprentices  were  white.  It  has  never 
been  claimed  that  there  was  any  desire  to  enslave  or  wrong 
the  white  apprentices. 

An  "apprentice,"  according  to  the  statutes  of  Vir 
ginia,  was  a  minor  bound  until  twenty -one  years  of  age  in 
the  case  of  a  male,  and  to  eighteen  years  in  the  case  of  a 
female,  to  perform  services  for  a  master,  and  to  receive  in 
turn  instruction  in  his  trade  or  occupation.  There  was 
nothing  servile  in  apprenticeship,  as  will  be  seen  by  an 
examination  of  the  statutes  regulating  and  defining  the 
rights  and  duties  of  both  master  and  apprentice.  The 
Constitution  adopted  at  Alexandria  in  the  spring  of  1864 
declares:  "Courts  of  competent  jurisdiction  may  appren 
tice  minors  of  African  descent  on  like  conditions  provided 
by  law  for  apprenticing  white  children." 

The  Legislature  of  "restored  Virginia"  at  Alexandria 
enacted  no  legislation  touching  this  question.  This  ex 
plicit  constitutional  provision  was  sufficient,  since  the 
Code  of  1860  defined  on  what  conditions  white  children 
could  be  apprenticed.  When  the  Legislature  of  Virginia 
met  at  Richmond  in  December,  1865,  it  took  up  the  minor 
negro  question.  After  nearly  two  months  it  was  decided 
to  make  only  one  change  in  the  "master  and  apprentice" 
statutes  of  the  Code  of  1860.  By  this  Code  the  master  was 
not  required  to  teach  a  "free  negro"  apprentice  "reading, 
writing  and  arithmetic,"  which  were  required  to  be  taught 
white  apprentices.  With  this  single  exception  the  laws 
regulating  white  and  black  apprentices  were  the  same. 
This  section  in  the  Code  of  1860  read  as  follows:  "The 
writing  by  which  any  minor  is  bound  an  apprentice,  shall 
specify  his  age  and  what  art,  trade  or  business  he  is  to  be 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6?         101 

taught.  The  master,  whether  it  is  expressly  provided 
therein  or  not,  shall  be  bound  to  teach  the  same,  and, 
unless  the  apprentice  be  a  free  negro,  shall  be  bound  to 
teach  him  reading,  writing  and  common  arithmetic,  includ 
ing  the  rule  of  three."6  It  was  amended  January  30,  1866, 
so  as  to  read:  "The  writing  by  which  any  minor  is  bound 
an  apprentice  shall  specify  his  age  and  what  art,  trade  or 
business  he  is  to  be  taught.  The  master,  whether  it  is 
expressly  provided  therein  or  not,  shall  be  bound  to  teach 
the  same,  and  shall  also  be  bound  to  teach  him  reading, 
writing  and  common  arithmetic,  including  the  rule  of 
three.  "6 

This  was  the  only  change  made  in  the  apprentice  laws 
by  the  Legislature  in  its  session  of  1865-66.  By  this 
amendment  white  and  black  apprentices  were  put  abso 
lutely  on  an  equality. 

January  28,  1867,  at  its  second  session,  the  Legislature 
passed  "an  act  concerning  the  authority  of  employers  over 
minors  in  certain  cases"  which  read  as  follows:7  "That 
whenever  a  minor  is  held  to  service  or  labor  of  any  kind, 
for  a  period  not  less  than  one  month,  the  employer  may 
exercise  the  same  authority,  control  and  discipline  over  the 
said  minor  as  are  now  exercised  by  a  master  over  an  ap 
prentice,  unless  it  shall  be  otherwise  agreed  in  the  contract 
for  the  employment  of  said  minor." 

The  purpose  of  this  act  was  to  give  the  employer  the 
same  rights  to  control  and  discipline  a  minor  under  con 
tract  for  a  longer  period  than  one  month  as  were  legally 
exercised  by  the  master  over  an  apprentice.  This  statute 
conferred  on  the  employer  no  right  to  overwork,  under 
feed  or  otherwise  abuse  the  minor,  since  the  "master  and 
apprentice"  laws  defined  very  strictly  the  rights  and  obli- 

BCode  of  Virginia,  p.  585. 

«Acts  1865-66,  p.  86. 

7  Acts  1866-67,  p.  567.  :'; 


102          Negroes  and  Their  treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-67 

gations  of  master  and  apprentice  and  provided  legal  reme 
dies  for  the  redress  of  any  grievance  of  either  party.8 

The  letter  of  this  act  applies  to  whites  and  blacks  with 
out  distinction;  yet  it  was  enacted  to  give  white  employers 
more  complete  control  of  the  young  freedmen,  who,  ac 
cording  to  all  accounts,  were  at  that  time  a  very  unreliable 
class  of  laborers,  and  very  little  inclined  to  respect  con 
tracts  and  the  rights  of  their  employers. 

In  1865  and  1866  the  young  negroes  were  constantly 
making  complaints  to  the  agents  of  the  Freedmen's  Bureau 
that  their  white  employers  were  "infringing  upon"  their 
liberty  by  "whipping"  them  or  using  "harsh  language"  to 
them.  Often  the  Bureau  agents  gave  a  ready  ear  to  these 
reports  of  outrages,  however  poorly  attested.  Eespectable 
men  who  had  "infringed  upon  the  liberty"  of  youthful 
"Afro- Americans"  by  using  a  switch  on  their  backs  or  by 
not  addressing  them  "politely"  were  notified  to  appear  and 
confront  their  accusers  before  the  Freedmen's  Court.  This 
act  of  January  28,  1867,  had  a  tendency  to  diminish  the 
number  of  such  cases  by  legalizing  so  far  as  a  State 
law,  at  that  time,  could  legalize  anything,  the  power  of  the 
employer  to  discipline  his  young  employee. 

This  statute  conferred  on  the  employer  no  unusual 
power,  but  simply  stated  that  he  could  lawfully  exercise 
upon  a  minor,  under  contract  for  labor  for  a  longer  period 
than  one  month,  the  rights  of  a  master  over  an  apprentice, 
unless  it  was  provided  in  the  contract  for  such  service  that 
he  was  to  enjoy  no  such  right  of  control.  It  does  not  ap 
pear  that  this  act  was  ever  abused,  since  by  its  own  terms 
it  did  not  go  into  effect  until  May  1,  1867.  Before  that 
time  the  Eeconstruction  Acts  had  reduced  Virginia  to  a 
military  district  and  had  suspended  to  a  great  extent  the 
operation  of  all  the  State  laws. 


«Code  of  Virginia,  jto,  585-S87. 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6?         103 

CHAPTEE   XIV. 
NEGRO  MARRIAGES. 

The  immediate  effects  of  emancipation  on  the  marital 
relations  ot  the  negroes  was  disastrous.  The  results  of  the 
war  had  freed  them  not  only  from  slavery  but  also  from  all 
forms  of  restraint,  marriage  among  the  rest.  Hundreds 
and  thousands  of  marriages  were  dissolved  at  once  without 
formality,  and  new  ones  formed  also  without  formality.9 
Some  negroes  who  had  been  "refugeed"  away  from  home 
on  the  approach  of  the  Union  forces  or  who  found  them 
selves  for  any  reason  separated  from  their  wives,  decided, 
at  the  close  of  the  war,  that  it  was  "cheaper"  to  marry 
where  they  were  than  to  return  to  their  old  homes  to  their 
former  wives. 

Thoughtful  people  felt  that  this  laxity  was  a  serious 
peril  to  the  future  of  the  black  race.  The  army  officers 
requested  clergymen  and  all  others  empowered  to  celebrate 
the  rite  of  matrimony  to  call  the  attention  of  the  negroes  to 
the  propriety  of  regular  marriage.0  The  Freedmen's 
Bureau  made  vigorous  efforts  to  "re-establish  the  sanctity 
of  the  marriage  relation  amongst  the  freed  people. m  The 
various  churches  strove  to  impress  them  with  the  necessity 
of  fidelity  to  their  marital  obligations  and  urged  them  as 
Christians  and  freedmen  not  to  abuse  their  liberty  by  run 
ning  into  licentiousness  and  promiscuous  intercourse.  The 
efforts  of  the  army  officers,  Freedmen' s  agents,  and  minis 
ters  were  fairly  effective.2 

9Ruffin,  The  Negro  as  a  Political  and  Social  Factor,  pp.  16,  17. 

oQen.  Halleck's  Order,  Serial  97,  Official  Records  of  the  War  of  the 
Rebellion,  p.  1221. 

^Messages  and  Documents  of  U.  S.  Government,  1866-67,  p.  665. 

2Rev.  8.  A.  Harris,  a  colored  minister,  applied  to  the  Court  of  Hust 
ings  in  Richmond  for  license  authorizing  him  to  perform  the  marriage 


104          Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6? 

Before  the  war  there  had  been  no  legal  provision  for 
the  marriage  of  negroes  in  Virginia.  No  license  was  issued 
for  their  marriage  and  no  record  was  made  of  the  simple 
ceremony  by  which  they  were  declared  man  and  wife. 
These  marriages  were  solemnized  by  negro  ministers  and 
were  respected  with  a  considerable  degree  of  fidelity.  As 
has  already  been  said,  these  unions  were  dissolved  with 
great  recklessness  at  the  close  of  the  war.  The  Legislature 
felt  that  something  must  be  done  to  give  greater  force  and 
sanctity  to  the  domestic  relation  among  negroes.  February 
22,  1866,  an  act  was  passed  providing  for  the  marriage  of 
colored  persons  in  the  future  on  the  same  conditions  as 
were  prescribed  for  whites.3  By  this  act  a  license  issued 
by  a  county  or  corporation  clerk  was  necessary.  After  the 
marriage  a  record  of  the  whole  proceeding  was  to  be  made 
in  the  clerk's  office. 

During  the  years  1865  and  1866  the  military  authori 
ties  and  the  Freedmen's  Bureau  agents  had  done  much  to 
encourage  the  negroes  to  marry  according  to  prescribed 
forms,  and  had  made  a  record  of  all  such  marriages  as  had 
been  solemnized  by  their  authority  or  acknowledged  in 
their  presence.  Many  negroes  had  been  married  under  the 
direction  of  these  officers.  Many  others  who  had  been 
1 'cohabiting  as  man  and  wife''  for  years  appeared  before 
them  and  on  the  payment  of  a  fee  of  twenty-five  cents  were 
given  a  certificate  of  their  relation  as  husband  and  wife. 
In  April,  1867,  the  General  Assembly  instructed  the  Gov 
ernor  to  obtain  from  the  United  States  authorities  the 
records  of  all  such  marriages  and  acknowledgments  by 
negroes  and  to  cause  them  to  be  deposited  with  the  clerks 


ceremony,  but  was  refused  on  the  ground  that  there  was  no  law  for  grant 
ing  such  license.  Enquirer,  Nov.  15,  1865.  The  Freedmen's  Court  in 
Richmond  authorized  the  issuance  of  license  to  negroes  wishing  to  get 
married.  Enquirer,  Dec.  11,  1865. 

SActs  1865-66,  pp.  85-86. 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6?         106 

of  the  several  counties  of  the  State  "to  preserve  evidences 
for  legitimatizing  the  offspring  of  such  marriages. m 

By  these  acts  all  marriages  before  the  war  were  legal 
ized;  the  children  of  such  unions  were  declared  legitimate. 
The  records  of  marriages  contracted  in  the  unsettled  period 
following  the  war  were  preserved,  and  the  marriage  of  col 
ored  persons  in  the  future  was  provided  for  on  the  same 
conditions  as  were  prescribed  for  whites. 


CHAPTEE  XV. 
INSURRECTION. 

During  the  war  the  conduct  of  the  slaves  toward  their 
masters'  families  was  in  the  highest  degree  praiseworthy. 
At  the  close  of  the  war  there  was  very  little  fear  that  the 
negroes  would  make  insurrection  against  the  whites.  Only 
two  uprisings  of  any  importance  had  ever  occurred  in  the 
State;  namely,  Gabriel's  attempt  near  Eichmond  in  1800, 
which  amounted  to  little;  and  Nat  Turner's  in  Southamp 
ton  county  in  1831,  in  which  fifty-five  persons  lost  their 
lives.6  These  occurrences  excited  temporarily  great  terror. 
In  1860  a  generation  had  passed  without  another  such 
attempt,  and  the  rural  whites  dwelt  in  confident  security 
in  the  midst  of  a  colored  population  numerically  greatly 
superior  in  a  large  part  of  the  State. 

Before  the  war  it  had  been  feared  that  horrible  ex 
cesses  would  follow  the  immediate  emancipation  of  the 

'Acts  1866-67,  p.  951. 

5Minor's  Institutes,  Vol.  I,  p.   169.    The  number  slain  is  variously 
reported. 


106         Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-67 

slaves.  Their  exemplary  conduct  during  the  war  had 
almost  entirely  dissipated  these  fears.  In  a  few  sections 
there  was,  in  1865  and  1866,  some  apprehension  that  the 
armed  freedmen  would  rise  against  the  whites.  General 
Terry  was  urged  to  disarm  them,  which  he  declined  to  do.6 
No  uprising  followed.  There  were  frequent  collisions  be 
tween  white  and  black  individuals,  but  there  was  no  insur 
rection  of  one  race  against  the  other. 

The  Code  of  1860  provided  the  death  penalty  for  incit 
ing  negroes  to  insurrection.7  There  was  no  penalty  for 
inciting  whites  against  negroes.  The  Legiplature,  Febru 
ary  9,  1866,  enacted:  "That  the  fourth  section  of  chapter 
one  hundred  and  ninety  of  the  Code  of  Virginia  for  eighteen 
hundred  and  sixty  be  amended  and  re-enacted  so  as  to  read 
as  follows,  to  wit: 

u§4.  If  any  person  shall  conspire  with  another  to  incite 
the  colored  population  of  the  State  to  make  insurrection, 
by  acts  of  violence  and  war,  against  the  white  population, 
or  to  incite  the  white  population  of  the  State  to  make 
insurrection,  by  acts  of  violence  and  war,  against  the 
colored  population,  he  shall,  whether  such  insurrection  be 
made  or  not,  be  punished  by  confinement  ia  the  peniten 
tiary  for  not  less  than  five  nor  more  than  ten  years.'-8 

This  act  repealed  all  special  punishments  for  inciting 
negro  insurrections,  and  provided  a  penalty  of  from  five  to 
ten  years  in  the  penitentiary  for  inciting  either  whites  or 
blacks  to  insurrection.  The  comparative  mildness  of  the 
penalty  indicates  that  the  Legislature  apprehended  little 
danger  from  uprisings  of  one  race  against  the  other. 


etfeneral  Terry's  testimony,  Congressional  Globe,  1865-66,  p.  1834. 
7Code  of  Virginia,  p.  783. 
SActs  1865-66,  p.  81. 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6?         107 

CHAPTER  XVI. 
SEPARATE  CHURCHES  FOR  NEGROES. 

Before  the  war  it  was  unlawful  for  negroes  to  meet  for 
religious  worship  conducted  by  a  colored  person  unless  a 
white  man  was  present.9  This  statute  was  frequently  dis 
regarded.  There  were  many  negro  preachers  who  were 
respected  by  their  masters  and  who  exerted  a  wholesome 
influence  on  the  slaves.0  They  were  illiterate  but  fervent 
and  frequently  pious.  It  was  also  unlawful  for  negroes  to 
assemble  for  the  purpose  of  being  instructed  in  reading  and 
writing.  Nocturnal  meetings  of  any  kind  were  unlawful. 
After  the  war  the  whites  offered  no  objection  to  the  educa 
tion  of  negroes  or  to  religious  meetings  conducted  by 
negroes  without  any  supervision  of  whites. 

Almost  all  slave  owners  gave  more  or  less  attention  to 
the  religious  and  moral  growth  of  their  own  slaves.  The 
plantation  of  every  pious  master  had  its  Sunday  school,  in 
which  the  negroes  were  instructed  by  enthusiastic  itinerant 
white  preachers  and  frequently  by  the  pious  women  of  the 
family.  Many  negroes  were  members  of  the  same  churches 
as  the  whites.  A  place  was  always  reserved  for  them, 
sometimes  in  the  body  of  the  church,  but  more  often  in  the 
galleries.  In  some  places  separate  churches  were  built  for 
them  by  subscription  of  their  masters.  Many  of  the  ablest 
white  ministers  preached  to  these  negro  congregations  from 
time  to  time. 

There  were  no  separate  ecclesiastical  oiganizations  for 
blacks.  Most  of  the  negro  church  members  were  Baptists, 
but  they  were  not  found  in  that  church  alone.  After  the 
close  of  the  war  most  of  the  colored  members  withdrew 

»Code,  p.  810. 

OQlmsted,  Seaboard  Slave  States,  Vol.  I,  p.  119. 


108         Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6? 

from  the  Baptist  Church  and  formed  a  separate  organization 
with  their  own  church  buildings  and  preachers.1  In  this 
they  were  encouraged  by  the  whites.  Before  the  close  of 
1866  the  colored  Baptist  churches  of  the  South  formed  a 
number  of  associations  which  put  themselves  in  connection 
with  the  Northern  Baptist  societies.  In  the  American  Baptist 
(African)  Missionary  Convention  which  met  in  Eichmond 
in  August,  1866,  nearly  all  the  Southern  States  were  repre 
sented.2  Schools  were  maintained  at  Alexandria,  Cul- 
peper,  Fredericksburg,  Williamsburg,  Portsmouth  and 
Richmond,  in  which  special  attention  was  given  to  train 
ing  colored  ministers.3 

The  General  Assembly  of  the  Southern  Presbyterian 
Church,  November  15,  1866,  considered  the  relation  of  the 
freedmen  of  that  church  to  the  white  members.  In  the 
various  synods  throughout  the  South  there  were  earnest 
discussions  in  regard  to  the  fraternal  standing  of  the  col 
ored  men  in  the  Presbyterian  Church.  By  some  it  was 
urged  that  negroes,  from  the  nature  of  Christianity,  were 
entitled  to  become  deacons,  ruling  elders,  or  ministers  of 
God,  and  that  in  the  church  sessions  and  assemblies  they 
were  entitled  to  "perfect  equality."  Others  warmly  op 
posed  this  view  as  leading  to  miscegenation  of  the  races.4 

In  the  first  general  conference  of  the  Methodist  Episco 
pal  Church,  South,  after  the  war,  in  April,  1866,  at  New 
Orleans,  it  was  provided  that  the  negroes  could  be  organ 
ized  into  separate  congregations  and  have  their  own  preach 
ers,  presiding  elders,  and  other  officers.5 

In  reconstruction  days  the  negro  preachers  were  prom- 

JPeyton,  History  of  Augusta  County,  p.  88 ;  pamphlet  by  F.  G.   Ruffin 
(Randolph  &  English,  Richmond). 

2American  Annual  Cyclopaedia,  1866,  p.  57. 
3American  Annual  Cyclopaedia,  1867,  p.  87. 
4American  Annual  Cyclopaedia,  1866,  p.  625. 
5  American  Annual  Cyclopaedia,  1866,  p.  491. 


Negroes  and  their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6?         109 

inent  spokesmen  of  their  race.  Few  of  the  blacks  could 
read,  all  were  excited  and  inquisitive  about  their  future 
condition.  The  oratory  of  the  radical  leaders  and  colored 
preachers  was  the  chief  source  of  political  information  and 
knowledge  that  they  trusted.  The  ministers  were  confi 
dent,  fervid,  and  wordy.  Many  of  them  were  immoral 
and  neglected  the  Gospel  for  politics  and  sociology. 

Within  a  few  years  after  the  war  practically  all  of  the 
negroes  withdrew  from  all  the  white  ecclesiastical  organiza 
tions,  and  formed  numerous  denominations  entirely  inde 
pendent  of  white  control  or  direct  influence.  A  great 
multiplicity  of  church  societies  sprang  up  in  each  of  these 
sects.  The  social  side  of  church  life  was  highly  developed. 
The  church  building  with  its  festivals,  social  meetings,  and 
revivals  became  the  social  center  of  the  colored  community. 
The  members  contributed  liberally  to  the  building  of  the 
churches  and  to  the  support  of  their  ministers  and  church 
enterprises. 


CHAPTEE   XVII. 
EFFECTS  OF  THE  BECONSTKUCTION  ACTS. 

The  Eeconstruction  Act  of  Congress,  March  2,  1867, 
was  an  attempt  of  the  radicals  to  force  the  Southern  people 
to  recognize  the  civil  and  political  equality  of  the  colored 
race.  This  act  virtually  destroyed  the  government  of  Vir 
ginia  and  changed  the  State  into  Military  District  Number 
One,  of  which  General  John  M.  Schofield  of  the  United 
States  army  was  made  commander.6  The  negroes  were 

6In  the  main  Gen.  Schofield  discharged  the  duties  of  his  office  with 
tact  and  sympathy.  Through  him  Virginia  was  spared  much  that  other 
states  suffered.  See  his  autobiography,  Forty-six  Years  in  the  Army, 
Chapter  XXI,  for  his  account  of  his  administration. 


110         Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6? 

enfranchised  and  the  last  vestiges  of  their  inferiority,  civil 
and  political,  were  wiped  out  by  Federal  legislation. 

It  was  felt  by  many  that  the  traditional  influence  of 
the  old  masters  would  lead  the  enfranchised  freedmen  to 
vote  with  the  whites.7  John  M.  Botts  favored  enfranchise 
ment  of  the  negroes  as  right  in  principle  but  opposed  it  as 
inexpedient  since  he  believed  they  would  vote  with  their 
old  Democratic  masters. 

Negroes  attempted  to  vote  in  a  municipal  election  in 
Alexandria  early  in  March,  1867. 8  About  fourteen  hun 
dred  votes  were  presented  by  the  negroes  and  were  declined 
by  the  election  officers.  This  denial  was  severely  criticised 
in  the  North  and  in  Congress.  The  whites  withheld  the 
ballots  from  the  blacks  as  long  as  it  was  possible  for  them 
to  do  so.  After  Congress  had  enfranchised  the  freedmen 
many  of  the  leading  newspapers  urged  the  whites  to  strive 
to  maintain  their  influence  with  them  and  thereby  prevent 
their  falling  under  the  leadership  of  the  radicals  who  had 
for  some  time  been  growing  in  influence  with  them.9 

Many  of  the  negroes  announced  that  they  would  vote 
with  the  whites.  In  most  cases  they  were  ostracised  and 
intimidated  frequently  by  the  women  of  their  race  or  by 
radical  organizations  such  as  the  Union  League.  Demo 
cratic  negroes  were  denied  membership  in  many  churches. 
It  was  feared  that  a  general  collision  of  the  races  would  be 
precipitated  by  the  ill  advice  of  incendiaries  and  radical 
white  leaders,  amongst  whom  Eev.  J.  W.  Hunnicutt,  the 
editor  of  the  radical  newspaper,  the  Eichmond  uNew  Na 
tion,'  '  and  Judge  Underwood,  of  the  Federal  Court,  were 
very  prominent  and  influential.0 

TRichmond  Dispatch,  March  23,  1867,  April  5,  1867 ;  Whig,  March  6,  23, 
April  1, 1867. 

SRichmond  Enquirer,  March  8,  1867. 

^Richmond  Enquirer,  May  18,  21,  1867;  Richmond  Republic,  July  6,  7, 
1865;  Richmond  Whig,  April  1,  1867. 

"Richmond  Enquirer,  March  26,  May  18,  1867 ;  Dispatch,  June  20, 1867. 


Negroes  and  1 heir  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6?         Ill 

The  representative  newspapers  advised  the  negroes  to 
remain  friendly  with  their  old  masters  and  not  allow  them 
selves  to  be  ruined  by  talk  and  politics.1  At  the  same 
time  the  white  people  were  urged  to  explain  to  the  negroes 
their  rights  and  duties  as  voters,  but  it  was  everywhere 
felt  that  honest,  conscientious  citizens  could  not  bid  against 
Hunnicutt  and  the  radicals  for  the  vote  of  the  uegioes. 
The  Union  League  was  the  chief  agency  by  which  the 
negroes  were  organized  and  pitted  against  the  whites. 
This  organization  was  peculiarly  adapted  to  the  character 
of  the  blacks.  In  it  they  were  instructed  in  the  privileges 
and  duties  of  citizenship  and  special  stress  was  laid  on  their 
obligation  to  oppose  the  whites  and  to  support  the  Bepub- 
lican  party  which  had  given  them  the  ballot.2  It  early 
became  manifest  that  the  negroes  would  vote  solidly  with 
the  radicals.3  More  than  ninety-three  thousand  blacks 
voted  in  the  election  in  October,  1867;  only  six  hundred 
and  thirty-eight  voted  with  the  white  conservatives. 

The  Freedmen's  Bureau  officials  urged  all  negroes  to 
register  and  vote  for  delegates  to  the  convention  which  was 
soon  to  be  called  to  frame  a  State  constitution  that  would 
give  the  negroes  full  civil  and  political  equality.4  Almost 
every  male  negro  of  legal  age  promptly  registered.  Army 
officers  and  Bureau  agents  were  given  the  preference  in 
making  appointments  of  registrars. 

The  whites  were  apathetic.  Many  neglected  to  regis 
ter  although  the  leading  men  and  press  urged  all  to  regis 
ter  and  vote.5  Many  were  so  disgusted  at  negro  suffrage 
that  they  declared  that  they  would  never  vote  again.6 

iRichmond  Enquirer,  April  2,  27,  1867;  Whig,  April  1,  1867. 

2Documents  Relating  to  Reconstruction,  edited  by  W.  L.  Fleming. 

SRichmond  Enquirer,  May  24,  1867. 

4Richmond  Enquirer,  June  1,  1867. 

SRichmond  Enquirer,  June  17,  1867;  Whig,  March  7,  1867. 

^Richmond  Dispatch,  April  5,  1867. 


112         Negroes  and  Jheir  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6? 

This  was  very  unfortunate  as  it  made  it  easier  for  the  radi 
cals  and  negroes  to  dominate  the  State  for  several  years. 
About  forty-four  thousand  registered  white  voters  neglected 
to  vote  in  the  election  of  October,  1867.  Congressional 
acts  excluded  many  Confederate  soldiers  from  voting  and 
almost  all  of  them  from  holding  office,  since  an  officer  was 
required  to  take  the  "test  oath"  that  he  had  not  engaged 
in  armed  revolt  against  the  United  States,  or  given  l  'aid  or 
comfort"  to  the  Confederate  cause. 

Many  declared  that  negroes  were  not  eligible  to  office 
under  the  Eeconstruction  Acts.7  The  colored  inhabitants 
of  Alexandria  had  nominated  candidates  for  office  March 
1,  1867. 8  In  the  summer  of  the  same  year  a  considerable 
number  of  them  were  nominated  and  in  October  twenty -five 
were  elected  members  of  the  Constitutional  Convention. 
Their  right  to  hold  office  was  soon  generally  recognized. 

The  passage  of  the  Eeconstruction  Acts  in  the  spring 
of  1867  encouraged  anew  the  negroes  to  hope  for  the  con 
fiscation  and  division  of  the  lands  of  the  Confederates 
among  the  late  slaves.  In  September,  1866,  "radical  emis 
saries"  in  Buckingham  and  adjoining  counties  urged  the 
negroes  not  to  work  for  the  whites  and  to  assert  their  claims 
Co  the  land.9  All  confiscatory  schemes  were  ardently  sup 
ported  by  most  of  the  blacks.  Nevertheless  most  of  the 
Eepublican  leaders  in  Virginia  in  the  summer  of  1867  dis 
couraged  the  negroes  in  their  clamor  for  confiscation. 
Many  farms  occupied  by  freedmen  were  restored  to  the 
owners  in  a  comparatively  short  time  after  the  war. 

It  was  more  difficult  to  secure  negro  labor  after  March, 
1867,  than  it  had  been  before,  inasmuch  as  about  all  negroes 
gave  themselves  up  to  politics.0  After  registration  began 

^Richmond  Dispatch,  April  13,  July  11,  1867. 

^Richmond  Dispatch,  March  6,  1867. 

^Richmond  Whig,  Sept.  11,  1866. 

ORichmood  Enquirer,  April  18,  1867;  Dispatch,  July  8, 1867, 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6?         113 

they  became  more  demoralized  than  they  had  ever  been 
before  that  time. 

Encounters  between  whites  and  blacks  became  more 
frequent.  In  May  an  agitator  was  arrested  on  the  charge 
of  inciting  the  negroes  to  acts  of  violence  and  insurrection. 
He  urged  them  to  assert  their  claims  to  all  the  rights  and 
privileges  enjoyed  by  white  people  in  any  Northern  state, 
including  the  right  to  ride  in  street  cars  and  to  sit  in  any 
churches  and  theatres.  Negro  riots  such  as  occurred  in 
Eichmond  in  May,  1867,  alarmed  the  people.  It  was 
feared  that  the  relations  of  the  races  would  continually 
grow  worse.1  There  was  much  reckless  talk.  A  delegate 
to  the  Philadelphia  Convention  in  September,  1866,  said 
that  the  negroes  must  be  drilled  and  organized  for  fighting 
the  whites.2  He  prophesied  a  urich  San  Domingo"  in  the 
South  when  "the  rebels  attempt  to  rule  the  blacks."  Yet 
many  influential  negroes  strove  to  avert  aoy  ill  feeling  be 
tween  the  races.3  The  relation  of  the  races  became  more 
strained  and  unsatisfactory  than  at  any  previous  time  in 
the  history  of  the  State. 

Many  white  men  felt  that  it  was  not  prudent  or  patri 
otic  to  stand  haughtily  apart  and  allow  the  negro  voters  to 
fall  under  the  influence  of  radicals  and  self-seekers  to  the 
hurt  of  every  interest  of  society.  They  denied  the  wisdom 
or  constitutionality  of  the  means  by  which  the  negroes  had 
been  made  citizens  and  voters  but  considered  it  wise  to 
recognize  actual  conditions  and  to  strive  to  neutralize  as 
far  as  possible  the  baneful  influence  of  selfish  leaders  on 
the  negroes.  These  whites  soon  found  it  impossible  to  co 
operate  with  the  black  voters  who  suspected  their  motives 
and  implicitly  trusted  the  "scalawags,"  "carpetbaggers," 
and  their  own  leaders. 

iRichmond  Enquirer,  May  11, 1867. 
*Whig,  Sept.  6,  1866. 
3Enquirer,  May  10, 1867. 


114         Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6? 

A  wide  difference  of  opinion  appeared  as  to  what 
course  the  General  Assembly  should  pursue.  Some  urged 
that  it  should  call  a  constitutional  convention  and  take 
steps  to  put  into  effect  the  provisions  of  the  Eeconstruction 
Acts.  A  large  and  respectable  group  opposed  this  course 
and  favored  a  policy  of  "passivity."4  They  argued  that 
the  people  should  avail  themselves  of  the  delay  allowed  by 
the  law  in  hope  that  the  State  might  yet  be  spared  the 
shame  and  humiliation  of  universal  negro  suffrage  imposed 
upon  it  by  the  Federal  Government.  The  newspaper  dis 
cussions  of  this  question  were  very  acrimonious. 

A  State  convention,  called  by  the  Eepublican  Commit 
tee,  met  in  Eichmond  April  17,  1867.  5  Of  the  two  hundred 
and  ten  delegates  present  one  hundred  and  sixty  were  ne 
groes.  About  one  half  of  the  State  was  represented.  Very 
radical  resolutions  were  adopted.  Confiscation  was  de 
manded  by  almost  all  the  negro  delegates.  Some  of  the 
speeches  were  of  a  very  inflammatory  character.  The 
negroes  at  this  time  were  completely  under  the  influence 
of  Hunnicutt.  Many  respectable  Republicans  were  dissatis 
fied  with  the  radical  policy  of  Hunnicutt  and  the  negroes.6 

About  this  time  efforts  were  made  to  form  a  Eepub 
lican  party  in  Virginia  less  radical  than  the  Hunnicutt  or 
ganization.  The  Eichmond  Whig  became  the  advocate  of 
this  movement.  Late  in  April  a  convention  in  Petersburg 
formulated  a  platform  which,  it  was  hoped,  was  radical 
enough  to  meet  the  approval  of  the  Korth  and  not  too  rad 
ical  to  win  the  support  of  the  conservative  Eepublicans  of 
Virginia.7  This  platform  did  not  receive  much  popular 

<The  Enquirer  was  the  leader  of  the  "passivity"  group.  Most  of  the 
other  leading  newspapers  favored  a  prompt  acceptance  of  the  provisions 
of  the  Reconstruction  Acts. 

"Enquirer  and  Whig,  April  18,  1867. 
«Whig,  April  5,  1867. 


platform  demands    *    *    "that  the  political  power  of  the  State 
shall  henceforth  be  possessed  and  exercised   by  white  and  black  alike  ; 


Negroes  and  Their  1  reatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6?         115 

support.  Governor  Peirpont,  John  M.  Botts  and  other 
strong  men  had  always  denied  the  regularity  and  legiti 
macy  of  the  Eichmond  Convention.  The  Petersburg  Con 
vention  accepted  Botts  as  leader  of  the  movement  against 
Huunicutt  and  the  extreme  radical  organization. 

A  call  for  a  new  convention  at  Charlottesville  to 
organize  the  Eepublican  party  in  the  State  was  signed  by 
more  than  three  hundred  men.8  Many  of  these  were  old 
line  Whigs  of  character  and  influence.  Hunnicutt  and  the 
radicals  ignored  this  call. 

The  Eeconstruction  Committee  in  Washington  now 
intervened.  Through  its  influence  the  ''Union  Leagues" 
of  some  of  the  great  cities  in  the  North  undertook  to  bring 
about  harmony  between  the  radicals  and  conservatives.  In 
June,  1867,  about  fifty  men  representing  the  two  factions 
met  in  Eichmond  to  try  to  bring  harmony  amongst  the 
friends  of  the  negro.  Judge  Underwood,  Senator  Wilson, 
John  M.  Botts,  J.  W.  Hunnicutt,  and  John  Hawxhurst 
were  prominent  in  this  meeting,9  It  was  decided  to  recall 
the  call  for  the  Charlottesville  convention  and  to  call  a 
convention  at  Eichmond,  August  1,  to  formulate  a  party 
platform.  Eichmond  was  at  this  time  the  center  of  radical 
influence.  On  the  whole,  Hunnicutt  and  the  radicals  had 
triumphed  over  Botts  and  the  conservatives. 

About  this  time  a  movement  for  coalition  between  the 
whites  and  the  blacks  appeared  in  the  State.  July  1  many 
of  the  leading  citizens,  socially  and  politically,  of  Albe- 
marle  county,  met  in  Charlottesville  to  consider  the  wis- 


*  *  that  a  new  constitution  shall  be  framed  which  shall  provide  that  all 
men,  white  or  black,  without  reference  to  previous  conditions  of  servi 
tude,  shall  be  perfectly  equal  before  the  laws,  both  in  respect  to  political 
privileges  and  power  and  of  civil  rights ;  and  that  all  laws  creating  distinc 
tions  or  differences  of  any  sort  between  persons  of  different  races  shall  be 
unconstitutional,  null,  and  void." 

^Enquirer,  May  21,  1867. 
9Bnquirer,  June  19, 1867. 


116         Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6? 

dom  and  practicability  of  "co- operation"  with  the  conven 
tion  called  to  meet  in  Richmond,  August  1.°  They  ex 
pressed  a  desire  to  "co-operate"  with  the  Eepublican  party, 
and  forty-six  delegates  were  appointed  to  represent  them 
in  the  Eichmond  convention.  Practically  all  these  "co- 
operators"  had  been  active  and  consistent  supporters  of 
the  Confederacy,  and  would  have  won  for  the  Eepublican 
party  the  support  and  confidence  of  much  of  the  best  white 
element  if  they  had  become  identified  with  that  organiza 
tion.  Other  counties  decided  to  "co-operate,"  and  sent  as 
delegates  some  of  their  most  distinguished  citizens. 

The  "co-  operators"  accepted  negro  suffrage  as  an 
accomplished  fact.  They  hoped  to  secure  the  support  of 
the  freedmen  and  to  leaven  the  radicalism  of  the  Eepubli 
can  party.  In  such  a  coalition  the  leaders  would  have 
been  white  men.  This  plan  did  not  commend  itself  to  the 
negroes,  who  demanded  a  "fair  division  of  all  offices," 
and  declared  that  wherever  two  men  were  elected  or  ap 
pointed  to  office  one  of  them  must  be  a  negro.1  Hunnicutt 
and  the  radicals  did  not  welcome  the  overtures  of  the 
"co-operators." 

The  convention  met  in  the  African  church,  in  Eich 
mond,  on  the  appointed  day.  The  negroes  thronged  around 
the  church  as  early  as  seven  o'clock  in  the  morning  and 
poured  in  and  filled  the  building  when  the  doors  were 
opened  at  eleven.  About  two  thousand  negroes,  Mr.  Botts, 
and  the  white  "co-operator"  delegates  were  left  outside. 
This  convention  was  made  up  of  negroes,  except  the  fifty 
white  delegates  who  had  attended  the  April  convention. 
Hunnicutt  addressed  the  "mass  convention"  in  the  church. 
He  said  that  the  only  work  before  the  meeting  was  to 
"endorse"  the  April  platform.2  It  was  promptly  "en- 

OEnquirer,  July  3,  1867. 
iCharlottesville  Chronicle,  July  2,  1867. 
?Bnquirer,  August  2,  1867, 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-67         117 

dorsed."     A  motion  to  allow  Botts  to  address  the  conven 
tion  was  lost  almost  unanimously. 

Many  of  the  country  negro  delegates  were  not  admitted 
into  the  church.  These,  with  the  throng  of  negroes  around 
the  church,  repaired  to  the  Capitol  grounds  and  were  ad 
dressed  by  John  Hawxhurst,  a  bitter  radical.  The  "co- 
operators"  were  huddled  together  on  the  outskirts  of  the 
throng.  Botts  and  the  conservative  Eepublicans  were 
ignored.  The  "co-operation"  movement  had  failed.  The 
negroes  had  definitely  declined  the  overtures  of  the  whites 
and  committed  all  to  the  radical  leaders.  This  triumph  of 
the  radicals  and  negroes  disgusted  and  discouraged  the 
whites,  who  had  hoped  that  the  negroes  could  be  induced 
to  accept  the  leadership  of  their  former  masters.  After 
this  some  of  the  Union  Leagues  refused  to  admit  white  men 
as  members.8 

An  election  was  ordered  for  October  18-21  to  deter 
mine  whether  a  constitutional  convention  should  be  called 
and  to  elect  delegates  to  this  convention  if  the  popular  vote 
should  favor  it.  The  campaign  was  energetically  con 
ducted  by  the  radicals.  Many  of  the  negroes  gave  them 
selves  up  completely  to  attendance  upon  political  meetings 
and  discussions  of  politics.  Many  of  them  were  nominated 
for  office,  about  one-third  of  the  radical  Eepublican  nomi 
nees  being  black.  In  Eichmond  the  radicals  nominated 
three  whites  and  two  blacks. 

The  equality  of  all  men  before  the  courts,  equal  civil 
and  political  rights  for  both  races,  free  schools  for  all 
classes  and  colors,  and  the  right  of  negroes  to  hold  any 
office  were  leading  features  of  the  radical  platform.4 

The  total  registration  of  voters  was  nearly  two  hun 
dred  and  twenty-six  thousand;  of  this  number  about  one 
hundred  and  twenty  thousand  were  white  and  almost  one 

^Documents  Relating  to  Reconstruction,  edited  by  Fleming,  No.  3,  p.  4. 
'Enquirer,  April,  19,  1867. 


118          Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6? 

hundred  and  six  thousand  were  colored.  Nevertheless  in 
the  election  the  blacks  cast  over  seventeen  thousand  more 
ballots  than  the  whites.  About  forty -four  thousand  regis 
tered  white  voters  had  failed  to  vote,  but  only  about  twelve 
thousand  seven  hundred  registered  negroes  remained  away 
from  the  polls.  Of  the  one  hundred  and  five  delegates  to 
the  Constitutional  Convention,  the  radicals  elected  seventy- 
two,  of  whom  twenty-five  were  negroes,  and  twenty-seven 
were  from  other  states  and  foreign  countries.  Only  about 
six  hundred  and  thirty-eight  negroes  voted  with  the  whites. 
This  shows  how  completely  the  radicals  had  won  them, 
despite  the  efforts  of  their  old  masters  to  influence  their 
ballot.  There  was  a  majority  of  about  forty -five  thousand 
in  favor  of  calling  a  constitutional  convention.  The  radi 
cals  were  jubilant  and  confident  of  their  future.  The 
negroes  were  almost  beyond  control  with  joy  at  their 
triumph.  The  white  conservatives  were  dismayed  by  their 
overwhelming  defeat  at  the  polls. 

The  Constitutional  Convention  assembled  in  Eichmond 
December  3,  1867.  This  was  the  first  time  in  the  history 
of  the  State  that  negroes  sat  as  members  of  a  legislative 
body.  Dr.  Thomas  Bayne,  Willis  A.  Hodges,  and  Lewis 
Lindsay  were  the  most  prominent  and  influential  negroes  in 
the  convention. 

The  State  had  been  revolutionized.  The  old  political 
leaders  were  absent.  The  old  dominant  class  had  lost  con 
trol.  Negroes  and  their  radical  friends  had  met  to  frame  a 
Constitution  for  the  Old  Dominion. 

Many  negroes  insisted  that  all  social  distinctions  of 
race  should  be  removed  by  law  and  custom.  In  Nanse- 
mond  county,  in  June,  1867,  a  negro  meeting  advocated 
negro  equality  in  every  respect  and  female  suffrage.5  Lewis 
Lindsay,  a  colored  leader,  in  a  speech  at  Charlottesville  in 
July,  1867,  claimed  social  equality  as  a  right  of  the 

^Richmond  Dispatch,  June  18, 1867. 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865--6?         119 

negroes.6  Similar  demaiids  were  made  by  negro  leaders 
and  radicals  about  this  time  in  many  parts  of  the  State. 
The  editor  of  the  Petersburg  "Index"  is  quoted  as  saying: 
"We  have  never  seen,  nor  do  we  know,  why  a  white  man 
who  wishes  to  marry  a  colored  woman,  or  a  white  woman 
who  wishes  to  marry  a  colored  man,  should  be  restricted 
in  the  caprice."7 

It  was  claimed  by  some  that  the  Petersburg  platform 
favored  intermarriage  between  the  races.8  Nevertheless 
many  negroes  opposed  any  agitation  for  social  equality, 
and  were  content  for  the  time  being  to  make  sure  of  civil 
and  political  equality  and  to  trust  the  future  for  other 
privileges.9 

The  whites  feared  that  the  radical  doctrinaires  would 
attempt  by  some  means  to  enforce  social  equality  as  well  as 
political  and  civil  equality.0  Social  equality  of  the  races 
was,  of  course,  never  more  than  a  dream  of  radicals  and 
enthusiasts  without  the  slightest  possibility  of  realiza 
tion.  Most  of  the  white  people  ceaselessly  fought  it  in 
every  form  and  tendency. 

Civil  and  political  equality  of  the  negroes  was  guar 
anteed  by  the  constitution  framed  by  the  convention  that 
assembled  in  Richmond,  December,  1867.  The  two  races 
continued  to  stand  apart  socially.  The  instinct  of  the 
white  race  is  against  social  equality  with  blacks.  Neither 
defeat  in  war  nor  triumph  of  radicalism  in  peace  could 
overcome  the  determination  of  the  whites  to  resist  social 
equality  and  to  preserve  racial  integrity. 


«Charlottesville  Chronicle,  July  2,  1867. 
^Richmond  Enquirer,  May  6,  1867. 
8Richmond  Enquirer,  May  4,  1867. 
»Whig,  May  28,  1867. 
"Richmond  Enquirer,  May  6-10,  1867. 


120          Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-67 

CHAPTEE  XVIII. 
SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSION. 

The  negroes  in  the  part  of  Virginia  west  of  the  Blue 
Eidge  were  only  about  fifteen  per  cent,  of  the  entire  popu 
lation  of  that  section.  They  were  considerably  in  the 
majority  in  the  rest  of  the  State.  The  negro  problem  has, 
therefore,  never  been  so  serious  a  question  in  the  Valley  and 
Southwest  as  in  the  Piedmont,  Southside  and  Tidewater 
sections. 

In  1865  the  people  of  Virginia,  almost  to  a  man,  ac 
cepted  the  unconditional  emancipation  of  the  slaves  as  the 
most  patent  result  of  the  war.  The  whites  did  not  hold 
the  negroes  responsible  for  the  events  of  the  war  or  their 
emancipation.  The  negroes  at  once  asserted  their  freedom 
and  for  a  few  years  were  greatly  demoralized  by  their 
changed  condition.  The  Freedmen's  Bureau  agents,  the 
Northern  teachers,  the  "scalawags"  and  "carpetbaggers" 
were,  on  the  whole,  disturbing  forces  and  prolonged  and 
aggravated  the  transitional  period  from  slavery  to  settled 
freedom. 

During  this  period  a  system  of  free  contract  labor  was 
developed.  The  effort  to  fix  wages  by  common  agreement 
amongst  the  farmers  was  a  failure.  There  was  little  oppo 
sition  to  renting  or  selling  land  to  negroes.  The  negroes, 
however,  did  not,  in  most  cases,  prove  successful  renters. 
Considerable  numbers  of  freed  men  bought  real  estate  in  the 
two  or  three  years  immediately  following  the  war.  Colored 
men  never  experienced  any  difficulty  in  buying  land  if  they 
had  the  money  to  pay  for  it. 

Business  was  prostrated;  money  was  scarce;  the  num 
ber  of  laborers  was  excessive;  wages  were  therefore  low. 

In  the  minds  of  the  freedmen  idleness  and  freedom 
were  synonymous.  The  rather  severe  vagrancy  laws  enacted 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6?         121 

by  the  Legislature  in  1866  were  not  attempts  to  re-enslave 
the  negroes  or  to  minimize  their  freedom  but  were  intended 
only  to  check  the  vagrancy  and  put  the  idle  freedmen  to 
work.  This  statute  was  annulled  by  General  Terry  within 
a  few  days  after  its  enactment.  It  is,  therefore,  impossi 
ble  to  say  what  would  have  been  its  practical  working;  yet 
it  is  not  probable  that  this  vagrant  act  would  have  been 
seriously  abused.  On  account  of  the  vagrancy  and  unre 
liability  of  negroes  as  laborers  it  was  found  necessary  to 
enact  a  contract  law.  The  provisions  of  this  act  were  not 
severe,  and  the  consequences  to  a  negro  of  its  violation 
were  only  indirect.  Every  vestige  of  the  old  slave  laws 
was  repealed  in  1865  and  1866. 

The  number  of  outrages  on  negroes  in  Virginia  from 
1865  to  1867  was  small.  There  were,  however,  many  com 
mon  brawls  and  personal  encounters  between  whites  and 
blacks,  but  no  more  than  were  naturally  to  be  expected  in 
a  population  of  twelve  hundred  thousand,  of  whom  five 
hundred  thousand  were  excited  and  insolent  freedmen. 
A  considerable  number  of  these  brawls  and  contests  arose 
from  the  insolence  and  insubordination  of  the  negroes, 
which  the  whites  would  not  tolerate.  In  disputes  about 
money  or  property  the  negroes  never  experienced  any  diffi 
culty  in  securing  full  justice.  In  common  cases  of  assault 
and  battery  and  in  more  serious  criminal  cases  white  courts 
would  not  always  convict  white  men,  if  it  was  alleged  that 
the  negro  had  been  saucy  or  insolent  toward  his  white  as 
sailant.  The  negroes  were  generally  given  something  like 
the  maximum  legal  penalties  for  such  offenses  as  theft, 
burglary  and  arson.  The  case  of  Dr.  Watson  and  a  few 
others  created  the  impression  in  the  North  that  the  courts 
of  Virginia  did  not  protect  the  freedmen.  Such  cases  were 
in  reality  extremely  rare. 

In  the  summer  and  fall  of  1865,  before  the  old  free 
negro  laws  had  been  repealed,  the  negroes  by  common  con 
sent  and  the  decisions  of  the  courts  came  into  about  all  the 


122         Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6? 

civil  rights  of  white  men.  By  the  legislative  acts  of  Jan 
uary  and  February,  1866,  all  special  punishments  and 
court  proceedings  applicable  to  negroes  were  repealed;  and 
they  were  thus  put  on  an  equality  in  this  respect  with 
white  men.  In  1866  they  were,  by  act  of  the  Legislature, 
declared  competent  witnesses  in  all  cases  in  which  the 
interest  of  any  colored  person  was  directly  or  indirectly 
involved.  The  whites  were  bitterly  opposed  to  the  enfran 
chisement  of  the  negroes,  and  accepted  it  only  as  it  was 
forced  upon  them  by  the  United  States  Government. 

A  large  majority  of  the  whites  favored  the  education 
of  the  negroes  in  such  ways  as  would  fit  them  to  become 
more  efficient  laborers  and  artisans,  but  opposed  both  the 
method  and  aims  of  the  Northern  teachers  who  were  teach 
ing  the  negroes  to  expect  full  political  rights  and  to  oppose 
their  former  masters. 

The  apprentice  laws  of  this  period  were  the  old  ap 
prentice  laws  of  the  Code  of  1860,  so  amended  as  to  apply 
to  whites  and  blacks  alike.  The  Legislature  declared  legiti 
mate  the  offspring  of  all  unions  of  colored  persons  before 
the  war,  and  provided  for  the  marriage  of  negroes  in  the 
future  on  the  same  conditions  as  whites. 

From  this  survey  of  the  condition  of  the  negroes  from 
1865  to  1867  it  is  seen  that  the  relation  of  the  whites  and 
blacks  was  during  that  period  about  as  cordial  as  could 
have  been  expected;  that  they  were  adapting  themselves  to 
their  new  conditions;  that  the  feeling  of  confidence  and  good 
will  between  the  two  races,  although  temporarily  shocked 
by  the  events  attending  emancipation,  was  reasserting  itself 
during  the  first  year  following  the  close  of  the  war;  that 
the  laws  had  been  so  amended  and  modified  as  to  secure  for 
the  freedmen  all  the  civil  rights  and  the  most  important 
political  rights  enjoyed  by  the  whites. 

The  Reconstruction  Acts  enfranchising  the  negroes 
and  the  other  Federal  legislation  in  their  interest  destroyed 
the  confidence  and  good  feeling  that  had  existed  between 


Negroes^and  Iheir  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6?         123 

the  two  races  and  arrayed  them  in  a  bitter  contest  for  the 
political  control  of  the  State.  In  the  election  of  October, 
1867,  the  negroes  and  radicals  were  successful.  Of  the  one 
hundred  and  five  delegates  elected  to  frame  a  constitution 
for  the  State  seventy-two  were  radicals.  Of  this  number 
twenty-five  were  negroes.  The  blacks  attained  full  civil 
and  political  equality  but  were  unable  to  secure  social 
equality.  These  struggles  engendered  political  and  racial 
passions  and  antipathies  that  have  not  subsided  after  a 
generation. 


124         Negroes  and  Their  treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6? 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


PUBLIC  RECORDS  AND  DOCUMENTS. 

Of  the  United  States  Government . 

Congressional  Globe,  1864-67. 

Census  Reports,  1860  and  1870. 

Reports  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture. 

Annual  Reports  of  the  Secretary  of  War. 

Statutes  of  the  United  States. 

House  Documents. 

Official  Records  of  the  Union  and  Confederate  Armies. 

Messages  and  Documents  of  the  United  States  Government,  1866-71. 

Ku  Klux  Report,  (Report  of  the  Joint  Committee  of  Congress  on 
the  Conditions  in  the  Late  Insurrectionary  States,  submitted  at 
the  2nd  Session  of  the  42nd  Congress,  1872). 

Of  the  State  of  Virginia. 

Code  of  1860. 

Acts  of  the  Restored  Government,  1863-65,  (Alexandria). 

Acts  of  General  Assembly,  1865-67. 

Annual  Reports  of  Virginia,  1870-71. 


NEWSPAPERS. 

Richmond  Times. 
Richmond  Enquirer. 
Richmond  Dispatch. 
Lynchburg  Virginian. 
CharlottesviUe  Chronicle. 
Richmond  Whig. 
The  Republic. 


Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6?          126 


HISTORICAL  WORKS  AND  COMPENDIA,  PAMPHLETS,  ETC. 

American  Annual  Cyclopaedia,  Appleton  &  Co.,  New  York. 

Tribune  Almanac,  New  York. 

JBlackwood's  Magazine,  American  Edition,  New  York. 

Ruffln,  F.  G.,  The  Negro  as  a  Political  and  Social  Factor,  Rich 
mond,  1888. 

Stuart,  A.  H.  H.,  A  Narrative  of  the  Leading  Events  of  the  First 
Popular  Movement  in  Virginia  in  1865,  to  Re-establish  Peaceful 
Relations  between  the  Northern  and  Southern  States,  and  of 
the  Subsequent  Efforts  of  "the  Committee  of  Nine,"  in  1869. 

Page,  Thomas  N.,  Atlantic  Monthly,  September,  1901,  Boston.  The 
articles  on  Reconstruction  in  the  Atlantic  Monthly  in  1901  are 
valuable  studies  of  the  different  phases  of  the  negro  question. 

Bruce,  Philip  A.,  The  Plantation  Negro  as  a  Freeman,  New  York, 
1889. 

Sommerville,  C.  W.,  A  Dissertation  on  R.  G.  Harper,  Johns  Hop 
kins  University,  1899. 

Woolley,  E.  C.,  The  Reconstruction  of  Georgia,  Columbia  Univer 
sity  Press,  1901. 

Ballagh,  J.  C.,  History  of  Slavery  in  Virginia,  Johns  Hopkins 
Press,  1903. 

Herbert,  H.  H.,  Why  the  Solid  South. 

Blaine,  J.  G.,  Twenty  Years  in  Congress,  Norwich,  Conn.,  1884. 

Bancroft,  F.  A.,  The  Negro  in  Politics,  New  York,  1885. 

Waddell,  Annals  of  Augusta  County,  Staunton,  1902. 

Peyton,  J.  L.,  History  of  Augusta  County,  Staunton,  1882. 

Dunning,  W.  A.,  The  Civil  War  and  Reconstruction,  New  York, 
1898. 

McCarthy,  Lincoln's  Plan  of  Reconstruction,  New  York,  1901. 

Summers,  L.  P.,  History  of  Southwest  Virginia,  Richmond,   1903. 

Minor,  J.  B.,  Minor's  Institutes,  Vol.  I,  Richmond,  1875. 

Helper,  H.  R.,  The  Impending  Crisis,  New  York,  1857. 

Schofleld,  J.  M.,  Forty-six  Years  in  the  Army,  New  York,  1897. 

Collins,  W.  H.,  The  Domestic  Slave  Trade  of  the  Southern  States, 
New  York,  1904. 

Documentary  History  of  Reconstruction,  edited  by  W.  L.  Flem 
ing,  Cleveland,  1906. 


126         Negroes  and  Their  Treatment  in  Virginia,  1865-6? 

Du  Bois,  W.  E.  B.,  Suppression  of  the  Slave   Trade,  New  York, 
1904. 

Olmsted,  F.  L.,  A  Journey  in  the  Seaboard  Slave  States,  1855-54, 
New  York,  1904. 

Schwab,  J.  C.,  The  Confederate  States  of  America,  New  York,  1904. 

Eckenrode,  H.  J.,    The  Political  History  of  Virginia  during  the 
Reconstruction,  Johns  Hopkins  Press. 

Documents  Relating  to  Reconstruction,  edited  by  W.  L.  Fleming, 
Morgantown,  W.  V&. 

Bassett,  J.  S.,  Slavery  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina,  Johns  Hop 
kins  Press. 


RETURN 


MAIN  CIRCULATION 


ALL  BOOKS  ARE  SUBJECT  TO  RECALL 
RENEW  BOOKS  BY  CALLING  642-3405 


DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 

r^ 

<•»»-*.  re*  e\*J  M  ! 

,    ,  f3  r  orn*] 

HftH  i  6  2SO; 

U.  C.  BEBKEU 

Y 

FORM  NO.  DD6 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
BERKELEY,  CA  94720 


f 

21662:^ 


VC  27989 


